Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address briefly the incidence and pattern of behavior with regard to our reaction to Saddam Hussein's latest actions in Iraq, and I want to preface it by saying that I have defended the President's decisions in Missouri with my constituents. I think it is important, given the history we have had with Saddam Hussein, to show him that the action we clearly regard as aggressive and the world regards as aggressive not be something he can get away with easily. This is the kind of person who keeps pushing and keeps pushing until he is stopped. it is better to try to stop him, to stop him at the early stages, rather than to wait until you have some kind of a general conflagration. I felt the President was right in responding. I did not want to second-guess the particular tactics that he chose. However, I think it is also important to be sensitive now to the kinds of concerns that my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] raised with regard to the fact that we are no longer dealing with a single response to a single incident. We are now dealing with a chain of responses, an ongoing pattern of behavior, and a policy that is being developed, a policy that involves ongoing and perhaps intermittent but ongoing military strikes. Even apart from the legalities of the War Powers Act, it would, it seems to me, to be both prudent and, as a matter of comity, an important thing for the President to consult at least with the bipartisan leadership. My understanding is that this has not been done. The longer this goes on, the more questions are going to be raised about it, the more important it will be to have unity within the Congress and the country as a whole. I do not understand, completely apart from the politics, completely apart from the War Powers Act, I do not understand why the President would not want at least on a quiet basis to be consulting and informing the bipartisan leadership of the Congress better than he has. It would, it seems to me, be a prudent thing to do.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] for helping to clarify the securitization issue, an issue that is critically important to increasing the pool of capital available to small businesses. I also look forward to continuing efforts to foster an efficient securitization market for small business loans.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time to continue the colloquy, and also add my compliments to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. He does have real-life experience in this area. It is my understanding these provisions are not intended to impair the future use of securitization structures already in the market, and approved by SBA as providing adequate protection to the agency, that have proven effective in expanding capital availability. I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] if that is indeed correct.

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chair of the Committee on Small Business for yielding to me. Before I engage the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] in a colloquy, I would just like to add my remarks to those of my colleagues, complimenting the distinguished chair for her excellent leadership. There is no stronger advocate for small business in the Congress, but what has really been extraordinary is the gentle firmness with which she has led the committee in the last year and a half. It has made it just a pleasure to serve on the committee with her. I want to wish her all the best in her future endeavors. I would thank her again for yielding for this colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify our intent with respect to the language in this bill dealing with securitization. This provision was dealt with extensively during the committee markup of H.R. 3719. Between the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] the distinguished ranking member of the committee, and myself. It is my understanding this provision grants SBA the authority, if they deem necessary to exercise it, to protect the agency's interests by requiring lenders to retain exposure of up to 10 percent of the loans being securitized. This in no way mandates the holdback or exposure requirement in all cases. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York if that indeed is his understanding.

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my opposition to the conference report on the defense authorization bill which the House passed earlier this evening. Mr. Speaker, shortly after I was elected to the Congress in 1992, several constituents first raised with me the POW-MIA issue. It did not take a great deal of research before I concluded, to my shame, that our Government had left hundreds of POW's behind in Vietnam at the end of that war. Since I entered the Congress I have participated in hearings which have only reinforced my original conclusion in that matter. In fact, the Government's denials in these hearings have taken on a feeble and pro forma quality, as if they know and we know that what they must say for the record is not true. Like many other Members, I continue trying to expose this truth publicly, but I am not so naive as to believe, with all the foreign policy, economic, and personal interests at stake that any administration is likely to admit that several hundred men were left behind following Operation Homecoming in 1973, and that a 20-year bipartisan coverup has since occurred. 2315 But I did think it possible to make better provision for servicemen in the future. I was very pleased when, in last year's authorization bill, Congress passed the Missing Service Personnel Act. This act established a separate agency to track POW-MIA's, granting extensive powers to that agency and legal rights to the families of missing servicemen. The new legislation made it much less likely that soldiers could be left behind in subsequent wars. It tacitly recognized and therefore partially redeemed the sins of the past. Nothing could give better meaning to the past sacrifices of our POW's than real action to ensure that others are never abandoned as they were. However, during debate on this year's bill, and at the urging of the Pentagon, the Senate adopted an amendment gutting the legislation passed only 6 months ago, loosening standards for investigation and certification. As has so often been the case with the POW-MIA issue, it is impossible to fathom the reason for the Senate's and presumably the Pentagon's position. Certainly the families and the veterans organizations will be mystified and heartbroken. As I said before, the new law has only been in place for 6 months. What have we learned in that short period of time that justifies so significant a change? Why do we now believe that it is acceptable for a commander to wait 10 days before reporting that one of this men is missing in action? Why is it less important now than it was 6 month ago to require that forensic standards be satisfied before identifying a body based on one tooth or one bone? And what has the Department of Defense done since the beginning of the year that should convince us to err on the side of giving it more discretion in making these determinations given its dismal record over the last 20 years? Mr. Speaker, I cannot blame any Member who decided to vote for this conference report because of the good things in it, notwithstanding what it does to the cause of POW's and MIA's. Everyone has to make this own decisions in matters of that kind. I freely admit that my vote was based more on conscience than on policy. I simply cannot join in once more sacrificing the interests of our POW's in the name of some greater good. Objectively I know that what the Congress did tonight will have little effect on those left behind in Vietnam. I am sure they have long since given up hope of deliverance and in fact most are by now buried in fields or shallow graves or stored in warehouses in case the Vietnamese need their bodies for some purpose. What I find unendurable is the sense that we have today abandoned them again, heaping yet another betrayal on the bones of these honorable men who made the mistake of trusting us.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, marriage is older than the Government, older than the Constitution and the Union, older than the political traditions from which our Republic springs. It originated with human civilization; it is rooted in and sanctioned by the precepts of all the great monotheistic religions and in particular the Judeo-Christian religion. It strikes me as an enormous act of presumption to treat the institution of marriage as if it were infinitely malleable, like silly putty that can be turned and twisted into any shape without destroying it. If marriage means anything, it means nothing, and if it means nothing then our society fades away like a flower with no roots. I support this bill because it does what it says it will do; it defends marriage insofar as it is appropriate in our Federal system for the Congress to do so. I want primarily today to concentrate on the arguments offered against the bill. First, it is said that the bill discriminates against loving homosexual partners. Well, Mr. Chairman, this bill maintains the standards of our society; and whenever you maintain a standard, you necessarily place a burden on those who don't meet the standard. Our society has a standard against polygamy; that means that loving polygamous couples cannot all marry each other. We have a rule against incest. That discriminates against adult incestuous couples who wish to marry. Mr. Chairman, our society is hurting so badly that I'm for almost any kind of real love or commitment. But there is a limit to how much we can change the organic institutions of our society in response to the alienation some people feel. We live in a free country, where people can live pretty much as they want. It is free precisely because we have standards, because our society has successfully socialized most Americans in the values of love, charity, and tolerance; and the institution on which we depend to socialize these values is the institution of marriage. Those who oppose this bill are either seeking no standards or a standard vastly different from that sanctioned by millennia of tradition, the teachings of all the monotheistic religions, and in particular the teachings of Judeo-Christian religion on which our culture is based. It is also argued that supporting this bill and defending traditional marriage is equivalent to racial bigotry. Here I have to offer the House a personal complaint. I don't speak very often on the House floor, and it seems like every time I do somebody is calling me a racial bigot. I was for a balanced budget and that made me the same as a racist. I'm for welfare reform and in the eyes of some that was the equivalent of racism. Now I'm for the traditional standards of marriage and once again the other side is calling me a bigot. Well, if supporting heterosexual marriage is the equivalent of racism, then Pope John Paul is the equivalent of a racist and so are a lot of black pastors around the country because they all support traditional marriage, too. Mr. Chairman, it is precisely this kind of incoherence, this substitute of moral posturing for moral reasoning, that is at the heart of the cultural decline in America today. Finally, we are told that this bill is divisive. Mr. Chairman, there is a division in our society over whether homosexuality should be treated in all respects as equivalent to heterosexuality. Those who support this agenda are attacking the marriage institution in support of their cultural goals. We do not call you divisive because you are attacking the institution of marriage. Why do you call us divisive for defending it? The question isn't whether any of us are being divisive; it is what side of the division you are on, and whether you want this dispute to be resolved for every State by the Supreme Court of one State. If you respect marriage, if you cherish the traditions of our society, if you want to nurture the most basic institutions of our culture, then vote against these amendments and for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Madam Chairman, I have 1\1/2\ minutes; let me get right to the point. I appreciate very much the tone of the debate to this point, but I think the reason we ought to oppose the Democratic substitute is that it is much weaker on work than the underlying bill. It is better than the ones they have offered in the past, but it is much weaker on work. In fact, that is one of the things trumpeted as a virtue of it. We have heard that the Governors like that bill. Of course, they like that bill. They do not have to do very much under that bill, particularly in the earlier years. That is what they want, freedom and more money and not to have to do very much, particularly with regard to work requirements, and that is what the Democratic substitute does. First, on face value, in terms of the face work participation requirements, the main bill is stronger than the substitute. But we have to look beyond face value when we look at work requirements. Madam Chairman, at any given time, if we take a snapshot of the welfare caseload at any given time, there are people coming on and people going off. Naturally, without doing anything, people are leaving the welfare caseload, but others are coming on, and historically it has been growing, and we have been paying more and more money. The substitute would count people who leave naturally from the caseload towards meeting the work participation requirements. That is like a 10- percent bonus every year. What it would mean is that in order to meet the work requirements in the first year the Governors would have to do very little. They have to get another 4 percent of the caseload working. That is the reason that they like it. What we have heard basically is that this bill has to be reasonable, it has to be effective. Of course, it has to be effective. This system is terrible. Why are we arguing that we should be moderate in approaching it? If we are going to get substantial change, we have to have a bill that achieves substantial change and enforces that in the States. Vote for the main bill and vote against the substitute measure.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and I want to speak in the same vein as my friend, the last speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. I agree with one thing he said, certainly that we have a historic opportunity in this Congress, disagree with another thing he said, that nobody here is defending the existing system. I think that there are a lot of Members who quite sincerely are giving ground inch by inch, if at all, fighting furiously almost like a covered retreat to try and save as much of the system as they can, and I thought it would be useful to take a look at the system that we have created in this country over the last 30 years. Madam Chairman, in the immediate postwar era, poverty in this country was 30 percent. It declined pretty steadily until it reached 15 percent in 1965 when the Federal Government declared war on poverty. In the last 30 years we have spent $5 trillion on means-tested entitlement programs, and the poverty rate is 15 percent. Poverty has stayed the same. It is more intractable now, it is more ugly now, but it has not gone down. What we have gotten instead is a 6- fold increase in illegitimacy, an illegitimacy rate of 32 percent compared with about 6 to 7 percent in 1965. That is the kind of system that we have now and that we need to change. As my colleagues know, I could talk about statistics, about what that means for kids, about how much more likely they are to go to prison or to be on drugs. But I would rather talk about a story, the story of Eric Morris, a 5-year-old boy who was raised in a Chicago housing project. He was a good boy, had an older brother named Derrick. He refused to shoplift for kids who wanted him to steal candy, and so these older kids, these 10- and 11-year-old kids, lured him to a room in the 14th floor of that public housing project, dangled him out the window, and when his brother tried to help him, they fought his brother and they dropped him deliberately and killed him. And Eric died. Madam Chairman, Eric Morris did not need the system that we have given him. He did not need individual employment plans. He did not need subsidized day care. He did not need counseling. He did not need all the other 78 programs that we are fighting over today. He needed a dad. That is what Eric Morse needed. That is what the other kids in his housing project needed. What our system has done is taken away the dads from these kids and given them government instead. Senator Moynihan said 30 years ago that a society that does that asks for and gets chaos. It is time, and I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], to stop fighting, to stop engaging in politics, to stop defending this system, to change it, this system that is destroying the kids and the families and the neighborhoods of America. That is what this bill is designed to do. Let us pass it. Let us send it to the President. Let us urge him to sign it. Let us make sure there are no more Eric Morses.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to the Hoyer amendment. I want to say right up front that I appreciate, as always, the very gracious style of the gentleman who is offering the amendment and his attempts to keep this debate squarely on the merits and not let it get personal. I want to proceed in that vein as well. Let me speak from the heart about why I am opposing his amendment. Mr. Chairman, when I look at abortion, I cannot get past looking first and foremost at what the status of an unborn child really is. The scientific facts, and these are scientific facts, is that we are dealing with a life, no question, an unborn child is alive. It is a member of the human species. Not anything else. Has a genetic code, is completely separate from its parents. It seems to me that makes the unborn child a person, a human being. To say otherwise is to make personhood turn on standards of development, how developed a person is, which is a dangerous principle going into the law. I know the argument on the other side, an argument based on choice. It is a good argument when you are dealing with one person. But it just seems to me it is very circular, when you have to address the question how many people are involved in here. How many people's choices should be taken into account. That is why I am opposed to abortion and why I believe that as time goes on and as we present these facts to the American people, we will persuade them, and that is what we have to do, we have to persuade them. We cannot now, the Supreme Court has said, we cannot now prohibit this procedure, but we can still try and persuade. One of the ways that we can persuade is say, look, we do not want taxpayers funding the programs to have anything to do with this procedure. Whatever people can or cannot do under the Supreme Court decision is for themselves. We do not want to participate in this with Federal taxpayer dollars. That is all that the bill says, and I do not want the Hoyer amendment to take that out. You can argue fine questions about whose money this is. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, when you get down to fine questions, let us err on the side of life. Let us err on the side of saying, we do not want to have anything to do with this procedure and continue persuading the American people.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, the institution of marriage is not a creation of the State. It is older than the government, older than the Constitution and the laws, older than the Union, older than the Western tradition of political democracy from which our Republic springs, and I think it is deeply rooted in the basic precepts of our civilization. It has been sanctified by all the great monotheistic religions and, in particular, by the Judeo-Christian religion which is the underpinning of our culture. Mr. Chairman, it is an act of hubris to believe that marriage can be infinitely malleable, that it can be pushed and pulled around like silly-putty without destroying its essential stability and what it means to our society, and if marriage goes, then the family goes, and if the family goes, we have none of the decency or ordered liberty which Americans have been brought up to enjoy and to appreciate. That is what this bill is about. I am going to deal just very briefly with two of the arguments that have been used against it. The one is that the bill is somehow against love or against loving or caring relationships. It is not. There are all kinds of loving and caring relationships in America, and basically that is a good thing, and people can do that if this bill passes. We are not saying that people cannot do that. We are saying that the States should not be forced to give the imprimatur of legal sanction to those kinds of relationships, and to argue to the contrary is to say essentially the States have to recognize polygamy if it is loving relationships or adult incestuous marriages if it is a loving relationship, and what it shows is we are on a slope that leads to no standards and no relationships, as the gentleman from Georgia said, where marriage becomes meaningless. The other argument that this bill is somehow divisive. Mr. Chairman, let us be frank here. There is a division that already exists in our society, a great gulf over how we ought to define marriage and what it means in terms of sexual morality. This bill does not create that. The people who are trying to attack marriage, the other side, is not saying they are being divisive. Why are we being divisive? Because we are trying to defend it. The question is not whether there is a division. The question is which side of the division are my colleagues on and whether we are going to allow these issues to be worked out democratically in the States according to the democratic processes or whether we are going to have a resolution that is forced upon the States by the court.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a story sent to me by one of my constituents which describes an act of selflessness that should serve as an example to us all. We are all familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan, but how many of us, in this day and time, are blessed with meeting one? On October 18, 1994, Rhonda and Ed McCabe had met at the Three Flags Center in St. Charles, to take care of some personal business then went out to dinner. Upon returning to the parking lot to get their second car, out of the corner of her eye Rhonda noticed something moving. It was dark and rainy, making it difficult to tell if it was a couple of kids fighting, or perhaps a vicious crime happening. She had Ed pull the van around to see what was happening and if help was needed. A rain soaked man was collapsed on the ground over his briefcase and notebook computer, lying face down in a puddle. His legs were thrashing about as he appeared to be having convulsions. Rhonda and Ed got out of their vehicle to give this man assistance. As they turned him over, Rhonda, being a very capable and well experienced nurse, recognized the severity of the situation and knew exactly what had to be done immediately to save this life. She sent Ed to get help and to call 911 from the only business that still had lights on, the Norwest Financial Company. John Lopes left his office and offered to help in anyway needed. Under Rhonda's calm and concise direction Ed and John assisted her in administering CPR. Accustomed to depending on God's guidance, she also talked to the Lord, as she directed the necessary steps of CPR until after the paramedics arrived. In a medical opinion, had no one helped this man when she did he may have died or suffered severe impairment. Rhonda's unselfish deed of giving help to a stranger in need, was more than using her training and nursing experience, it was an expression of service to God. She felt she was directed to be there to help save a life. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Mrs. McCabe for her act of courage and bravery. She truly is a fine example of a modern-day good Samaritan.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a thoughtful letter on a problem in our Nation's schools written by David Wagemann, a constituent of mine from St. Louis, MO: Dear Congressman Talent: You visited my home in the summer of 1992, as you were running for your first term in office. I was very impressed with your positions at that time and still am. Your reputation for strong principles, integrity and honesty have inspired me to write this, my first letter, to a congressman. My concern is not a new one, but I wonder if it has been brought to your attention. The press is flirting with it and it has the potential to become a national scandal. On December 12, 1995, 60 Minutes showed a segment on the problem. I am enclosing newspaper articles from our own Post Dispatch which begins to expose the problem which is that our school districts are becoming drug pushers. My oldest son Christopher attends the Parkway Northeast Middle School. We moved into the district in 1991, when my son began the third grade at Parkway's McKelvey School. Before that he attended the Woodland Elementary School of the Jennings District. At Woodland, we discovered that my son was easily distracted, was disruptive in class and had poor social skills with members of his own peer group. I know that my son was a handful, but he was generally not a problem in the home. He is kind and loving. He is very good with animals and children younger than himself. He is very artistic and has even had his work displayed in the Capitol at Jefferson City. I wanted to work with the school to improve his behavior and so became involved with a team consisting of his teachers, administrators, counselors and myself. Chris seemed to flourish at Woodland. Through my association with ``our team'' I became a Cub Scout Leader, Treasurer and later President of the PTO. Never once during the four years we spent at Woodland did any of the teachers, administrators, or counselors suggest that I medicate my son. Even so, I was raised in the Parkway District and felt that I could improve my children's prospects for the future by moving there. Within a month, my son's third grade teacher informed me that my son had Attention Deficit Disorder and needed to see his pediatrician for Ritalin. The pediatrician, who had attended my son since birth, gave me a set of written questions to be answered by myself and another set for this teacher. This is called a Conners Test. My son did not score high enough to be diagnosed with ADD, but the doctor gave me a prescription for Ritalin anyway and instructed me that if it had a positive effect on my son's behavior, he most likely did have ADD. The drug was to be administered in the morning and at lunch on school days only. I was instructed not to give it to him on weeknights, nor on weekends, nor during the summer break. The supposed purpose of these instructions was to determine when my son would outgrow the need for Ritalin. The drug did indeed have a profound effect on my son. Within minutes of taking the drug my son would enter a zombie-like state (this descriptive term is borrowed from any number of professional articles.) His disruptive tendencies were gone and he would appear to stare, glassy eyed, into the distance. The teacher reported that the changes she had expected had occurred and that she was pleased with my son's behavior while he was under the influence. An equally immediate problem manifested itself in our home exhibited by personality disorders while he was not under the influence of the drug. My passive, loving, artistic child became hostile, aggressive and abusive to everyone around him. I have since learned that the medical profession recognizes this behavior as ``rebound effect.'' I recognized it more simply put in the vernacular of my youth as crashing off the drug. I reduced the dosage to half a 5mg tablet, but the effect was the same. We tolerated this medical and educational experiment for a duration of two weeks, after which I permanently discontinued the drug and devoted the whole of my energies to learn all I could about ADD and Ritalin. If, as I understand, one of the reasons our government exists is to protect its citizens, then what I have been able to discover through simple laymen's research, demands investigation and regulation by our government. In fact, the democratic controlled congress in the 1970's did investigate the use of Ritalin in our schools. They saw the drug induced behavior patterns, but made no discoveries of the improved academics or side effects. Perhaps enough time has passed and a congress with more traditional family values would consider the abusive tactics being used today to medicate our children for behavior modification. Ritalin is a stimulant medication, or again to use the vernacular of my youth, it is ``speed.'' The historical abuses of speed for recreational and medical purposes is well known to most of my generation. We all know from the highway billboards of the 1980's that ``Speed Kills.'' The federal government recognizes the dangers of Ritalin in particular. It is a felony to possess Ritalin without a prescription. The federal government limits the number of prescriptions a doctor can write for Ritalin, each prescription must be personally issued from a doctor to his patient or guardian. No telephone or mail order prescriptions are allowed. Pharmacists are limited by the amount of Ritalin prescriptions they can fill. Only a licensed pharmacist can dispense Ritalin. Pharmacists must keep Ritalin under lock and key. The known side effects of stimulant medications are appetite loss, insomnia, headaches, stomachaches, fatigues, staring, irritability, crying, motortics, Tourette's Syndrome, vocaltics, constipation, nervousness, depression, withdrawal, and liver damage. In my experience, most teachers are not aware of the side effects of Ritalin and when made aware, can display a degree of concern regarding the worth of the benefits. Still, there are those teachers, administrators, counselors and social workers who are unscrupulous in the efforts to force a parent to medicate the child. Recently my son's special services teacher iterated and reiterated three times in a single conversation that my son's social interaction problems would undoubtedly result in his death before completion of the eighth grade. When asked to elaborate she stated that my son waves his hands in front of other students faces. This same teacher in another conversation threatened to suspend my son for making excuses for keeping a sloppy notebook. Threats of this nature have been common in my past five years at Parkway. I have attended a lecture by Parkway's then Superintendent who is now the Superintendent of the Clayton District, when he highly exposed the use of Ritalin. Administrators have gone behind my back to my son's non- custodial mother in a nearly successful attempt to have him medicated. There are only two reasons that educators would have for wanting our children to be medicated; (1) that they be afforded the best possible education and (2) that disruptive tendencies be eliminated. The verdict is still out concerning the improved academics of a medicated child. My non-medicated son is typically a B-C student. The verdict concerning behavior enhancement is not in doubt. It has been observed that even non-ADD pre-adolescent behavior is improved with stimulant medications. Could this be the real reason that schools want our children medicated? Didn't we used to medicate institutionalized mental patients for the same reasons? Is a teacher's comfort worth risking the health of our children? I have employed the services of several clinicians to evaluate my son. Some were even suggested by the schools. Their first choice is always Ritalin despite my concerns. Some even chose to condescend from their lofty pinnacles of knowledge. I wanted to know just what they knew. What I discovered is a scandal of its own. They can describe the symptoms of ADD and ADHD, but have no idea what it is. Since the use of Ritalin is so prevalent you might expect that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain. That's one possibility. Another is an unidentifiable deformity. They have no idea what Ritalin does in the body so they are treating the symptoms of ADD with a symptomatic drug. They can't even determine whether ADD is physiological or psychological. They speculate about its cause. It could be congenital, but then again, it could be caused by head trauma. Consider how it is diagnosed. Different specialists diagnose in different ways, but a prominent method is to prescribe Ritalin and observe behavior changes. There is no MRI, no CAT, and no blood test. Some doctors offer motor tests, psychological evaluations or written self diagnosis. Less is know about ADD and ADHD that AIDS even though they have recognized ADD by one name or another for over 40 years. Recently the theory that ADD is outgrown in adulthood has been abandoned so that several generations can take advantage of stimulant medications. It is generally accepted that 3-5% of the population had ADD or ADHD. Enclosed you will find a January 10, 1995 article from the Post Dispatch which states that ``there are first grade classes in St. Louis County where 30% of the boys are reportedly being treated with Ritalin for attention deficit disorders.'' Any layman knows that boys are generally more disruptive than girls. If pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals are profiting by wholesale drug induced behavior modification of our children for the comfort of our educators, it is a scandal the like this country has never known. How would the Congress of the 1970's react to such a finding? Perhaps they would impose several restrictions on the dispensation of Ritalin. How would the Congress of today report such a finding? Parents today are not making informed decisions concerning this affair. Who will give us the information we deserve and who will protect us and our children from persecution in the schools we choose not to medicate our children? Disoveries that need to be made: School by school, what percentage of our children are being medicated for ADD and ADHD? Are these percentage growing? Comparisons need to be made between rural and urban districts, between neighboring urban districts, between public and private schools. What could be causing disparities? Do the schools have policies concerning counseling parents toward the use of stimulant medications? If individual schools exceed the recognized percentages by multiples of 5 or 10 or more; what action should be taken? What information do parents of ADD and ADHD children have to base decisions regarding treatment? How did they first become aware of ADD and ADHD? What counseling have they received and where did it come from? What kind of cooperation exist between schools and clinicians? What benefits of Stimulant medications do teachers really see? Improved Academics? Improved behavior? Which is most important to the teacher? Do parents who choose not to medicate their children feel harassed for their decision? Ritalin has been commercially available since the fifties. Why can't we establish the long and short term side effects of the drug? Congressman Talent, your prompt response to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Elizabeth S. O'Keefe of Whitfield School, one of the winners of the 1996 Toyota Tapestry program. The Toyota Tapestry program, which is administered by the National Science Teachers Association, began 5 years ago and has awarded more than $1.6 million in grants to teachers in the United States. Each year, 40 outstanding K-12 grade teachers are given grants of up to $10,000 to implement innovative 1-year programs to enhance science education in their schools. The winning teachers have developed projects that demonstrate creativity, involve risk-taking, possesses visionary qualities, and model a unique way of presenting science. Ms. O'Keefe's winning project was to develop a unique study on ground water in caves. Because caves are void of photosynthetic organisms and litter, the water contains dissolved nutrients as well as herbicides and pesticides that percolate through rock and soil layers into cave streams. Rivers and springs are tested for pollutants; however, there is no systematic evaluation of pollution in cave water. O'Keefe's seventh grade classes will collect and evaluate water samples from 10 cave sites that were tested over 20 years ago, and determine what environmental and geological changes have occurred over this period. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to pay tribute to Elizabeth O'Keefe, and commend her upon her efforts in ensuring the next generation a quality foundation from where they can pursue their ambitions. I join the National Science Teachers's Association in honoring the excellent work that she has been able to accomplish.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the following statement into the Congressional Record. On June 26, I missed three rollcall votes on the fiscal year 1997 VA/HUD appropriations bill because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote 272, I would have voted ``yes''; On rollcall vote 273, I would have voted ``no''; and On rollcall vote 274, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time and for introducing this resolution commemorating the service and the life and times of our good friend, Bill Emerson. We have talked a lot about Bill's beliefs and his enthusiasm, his principles and his character. I speak from the perspective of one who regarded Bill Emerson not just as a friend and a colleague but as a mentor. From the moment I became involved in running for Congress, all through my service in the Congress, he was always available on a very practical level to help me; and he always did, and you knew you could trust him. Another great Missourian, Harry Truman, said one time, ``If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog.'' Well, that was not true with regard to Bill Emerson. I look around at the people here on this floor and I know everybody regarded him as a friend and somebody that you could trust and confide in. I walked up to him in the Cloakroom one time. It was my first year here, and I was going through a bout of freshmanitis. I just felt like I was carrying the weight of the world around. I said, Bill, can I talk to you for a minute? He said sure. I said I am just so uptight. It is kind of vague anxiety. He says, ``Well, what is it? What is wrong, Talent?'' I said, I just feel like it is hard for me to keep going day after day, there is so much going on that I do not understand. He said, ``What do you mean?'' He kept drawing me out. I finally said, it is like my neck is all tight. It is like I just cannot seem to move it. He said, ``Well, what you need, Talent, are neck exercises.'' He started moving his head back and forth, and then he started laughing and I started laughing. By the time we were finished, my depression was gone. He knew exactly what I needed. He looked right down into my soul and he gave me the help that I needed. He was a big fan, we have mentioned here, of Abe Lincoln. I do not know if anybody before I came talked about what a fan he was of Winston Churchill's. Winston Churchill said one time in a speech about Neville Chamberlain, and I think everybody in public life can relate to it, he said: At the end of the day, history is going to judge what we do, and we do not know what it is going to say. But at the end of the day, at the end of a life, the only shield you really have is the rectitude of your conscience. Mr. Speaker, by that shield, our friend Bill Emerson will do very well in the reckoning of history. He lived by his principles. He was faithful to his beliefs in his constituents. He fought the good fight. He finished the race. He kept the faith. It was a privilege to have known him.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, we do not realize the true worth of a great man until he is gone. The networks of which he is a part, the man of which he is the hub, slip and shake and tremble. We all feel the insecurity of things if even the strongest among us can be so quickly taken from us. Yet we all realize the impact for good that a good man can have. So it is, Mr. Speaker, with our dear colleague, Bill Emerson. Much will be said of Bill in the coming days. I wish to say this now. He was my friend, faithful and just and charitable to me. He served his country. He loved his family. He is now most certainly with his Savior, and I will miss him more than I can say.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize four individuals from Missouri's Second Congressional District who are being honored by the St. Charles Chamber of Commerce and by the city of St. Charles, MO, for excellence in their businesses and community-oriented projects. Mr. Bob J. Kirkwood, proprietor of Lewis & Clark's Restaurant and the Trailhead Brewing Co., has been named the 1996 Small Business Person of the Year by the St. Charles Chamber of Commerce. Through his hard work and leadership, Lewis & Clark's has grown into one of the most successful restaurants in the St. Louis area. In 1995 he opened the Trailhead Brewing Co., which is also experiencing phenomenal growth in its first year. Mr. Kirkwood has also been a leading advocate for other restauranteurs and small business owners through his work with the National Restaurant Association. Mr. Manuel E. Joaquim of Findett Corp. has been recognized as the 1996 Employer of the Year in Manufacturing. Findett Corp. is a custom manufacturer of specialty chemicals for major corporations across North America. Under Mr. Joaquim's leadership, Findett's sales have increased rapidly over the past 5 years. His employees also participate in numerous civic and community projects around the St. Charles area. Mr. Jim Trenary of Jim Trenary Chevrolet has been recognized as the 1996 Employer of the Year in Retailing. Trenary Chevrolet, which opened in October of 1993 with 12 employees, currently has 43 employees with plans to expand and improve its facilities. Mr. Trenary has been in the automobile business 29 years, and he has served on numerous civic and business organizations in the St. Charles area. Mr. Ray Pickett of Pickett, Ray, & Silver, Inc. has been named the 1996 Employer of the Year in Service. Mr. Pickett's company specializes in civil engineering, land planning, surveying, and construction management for numerous types of developments. Pickett, Ray, & Silver has experienced rapid growth, while providing highest quality of products and services to its customers. Mr. Speaker, these gentleman and their companies are to be commended for their dedication to their customers, communities, and their country, I ask that you join me in congratulating them on these fine achievements.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of two outstanding programs that have made a tremendous impact on the St. Louis community: the Salvation Army comprehensive substance treatment and rehabilitation program [CSTAR] and the Salvation Army community in partnership family center [CIP]. These two organizations have worked with a consortium of businesses, service organizations, and governmental groups to provide the St. Louis community at large with invaluable homeless and drug treatment services. The Salvation Army's CSTAR and CIP programs are part of an effort to help stabilize and empower homeless families and women with chemical dependencies so that they may help themselves. By nurturing a sense of dignity and resourcefulness, these programs enable individuals and their families to re-enter the community as participating citizens. Through the unique programming offered at each of the centers, families are given a foundation to rebuild their lives and eventually relocate into safe and affordable housing. About a year ago, Congressman Watts and I began to travel and visit organizations, like these, around the country. We asked the people and community leaders what they needed to run their programs more efficiently and what it would take to revitalize these impoverished communities. All of the organizations found the Federal Government's involvement in their programs to be burdensome and intrusive. The Government made them jump through bureaucratic hoops, fill out stacks of paperwork, and follow silly, expensive, and troublesome regulations. They asked us to reduce this redtape and allow participants to enter their programs without having to comply with an abundance of requirements and to be able to run their program without being told which portions of the programs were acceptable and which were not. Based on these recommendations and others from people we met, we introduced legislation designed to empower the institutions that provide structure, rehabilitation and order to low-income neighborhoods. The bill does this by empowering faith-based and other private groups, funding scholarships for low-income children, encouraging private investment and home-ownership, and assisting those neighborhood groups which are restoring structure to their communities. The American Community Renewal Act allows for up to 100 renewal communities to be established on a competitive basis in both urban and rural areas. To be designated a renewal community, State and local governments would have to work together with neighborhood groups to lessen the burden of rules and regulations that hamper job creation. There are two tenants of the bill that would directly and positively impact the Community in Partnership Family Center as well as the CSTAR program. The first is a charitable tax credit. Individuals would be able to contribute to the charity of their choice, whose mission is poverty relief, and receive a tax credit of up to 75 percent of a $200 donation. The other provision would allow renewal communities to voucherize their drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Participants would have the ability to choose where to receive their treatment-- whether private or public. It's no great secret that private programs like CSTAR have tremendous success rates and little recidivism. Targeting the few pillars of strength in these communities and empowering them is essential to uplifting the deterioration of our low- income communities. CSTAR, the family center, and others deserve the recognition and support from the Federal Government and I believe the community renewal bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, it is both an honor and a privilege for me to pay tribute to these fine organizations, and commend them upon their efforts to ensure that all residents of St. Louis County have the opportunity to operate in the community as participating citizens. They are an outstanding example not only for the residents of St. Louis County, but to the Nation as a whole.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Fort Zumwalt North Middle School seventh and eighth grade concert choirs from O'Fallon, MO. Over the past 2 years, under the skilled guidance of their director, Mr. Gregory S. LeSan, the North Middle School choirs have been honored with numerous trophies and plaques in national-level competitions. These include, competitions at Six Flags Over Mid-America where both the seventh and eighth grade choirs received top honors, and the Worlds of Fun competition, where once again, both choirs took home first prize. In addition, they have also performed in several invitationals such as, the 1996 Music Educators National Convention in Kansas City, where they represented the entire State of Missouri. However, perhaps their greatest accomplishment thus far, came with their invitation to compete July 9 through 14, 1996, in the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod in Llangollen, Wales. This is the first time in the 50-year history of this world-renowned competition that a public middle school from the United States of America has ever been accepted to sing in this audition-selected international event. This is a rare opportunity to represent their community, the State of Missouri, and the United States of America in a competition that represents over 50 countries. Mr. Speaker, these young people are to be commended for their continued hard work and dedication to excellence, which has brought not only their school nationwide recognition, but is also a source of great pride to the residents of O'Fallon, MO. It is with great pride that I congratulate these students and recognize the contributions they have made while at Fort Zumwalt North Middle School.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, let us look at this system that Governor Thompson and an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Wisconsin is trying to change. Let us look at what this system has given us. In the immediate postwar era, Mr. Speaker, welfare in this country was taken care of, basically, by localities and private charities backed up by State resources. Let us look at how that worked. In 1948, the poverty rate was about 30 percent. It declined steadily in the postwar era until in 1965, it reached 15 percent. What happened in 1965? The Federal Government declared war on poverty. Now, the national impulse to help the poor was a good thing, but here is how the Federal Government did it. It conditioned assistance on people neither working nor getting married, and the two best antipoverty programs, the way people typically got out of poverty, is by work and by marriage. In effect, what the Government did over a period of about 30 years was take away kids' dads and give them Government instead. We did not get a reduction in poverty. The poverty rate was 15 percent in 1965, trillions of dollars later, it is still 15 percent. What we got was an explosion in the out-of-wedlock birth rate. That is the system that Governor Thompson is trying to change. What is he trying to do about it? He is trying to replace this failed system that nobody will defend, that nobody wants to even be close to defending. He is trying to replace that system with a system of assistance to people that encourages marriage instead of penalizing it, that encourages, and in many cases for able-bodied people requires work instead of penalizing it. Everybody believes that that is the direction that we ought to go in. How much longer are we going to wait until we go in that direction? The existing system has produced hundreds and hundreds of thousands of instances of human tragedy and usually involving kids. I think of the story of Eric Morse who was raised in a Pittsburgh housing project, a 5-year-old boy. His mom taught him right from wrong, taught him not to steal, and there were some older kids in the project. They wanted him to steal. When he would not do that for them, they dragged him up to the top of that public housing project and they threw him out a window. There were no dads in that housing project, nobody to come out of a door and say what the heck is going on? Stop this. That is the result of this welfare system that people here are trying to defend without appearing to defend it. How much longer do we need to wait? We hear all kinds of excuses. Mr. Speaker, why are people devoting such energy in trying to defend or fight this covered retreat in order to prevent change of this system. We do not know enough about what Wisconsin is doing. We know our system, the federally imposed system is no good. We know that this State has been at the forefront of useful welfare reform. We know that this plan was approved by the huge bipartisan majority and endorsed by the President of the United States. What else do we need to know? We do not have a CBO estimate. We do not know how much this change is going to cost the Government. We know what this system is costing the Government. We know what the existing system is costing, not just in money, but in terms of lives. They say we need more time to consider this. We have had 30 years of this existing system. Let us give some changes an opportunity. We do not need more time to know that this system is broken. When President Clinton said at the beginning of his term, we need to end welfare as we know it, nobody stood up and said, no, let us keep welfare as we know it. Why are we preventing this change that everybody wants? Mr. Speaker, this is a plan that has been endorsed by a huge bipartisan majority in the Wisconsin Legislature, endorsed by the President of the United States; it is fully consistent with the bill that passed this House last year. It is not only what we should do, it is the least we should do. It is less than the least we should do. We should be having these principles nationally. Let us at least let the people of Wisconsin do this for the individuals in their State, the most vulnerable among the lower income Wisconsinites, and the children there, let us at least let them do this for their own communities.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a thoughtful article on regulatory issues affecting small business written by Mr. Tom McCrackin, a constituent of mine from St. Louis, Missouri: I recently received a letter from Rep. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), asking if I wanted to testify before the House Small Business Committee's Subcommittee on Regulation and Paperwork. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss regulatory issues of concern to business owners, testify about the burdens of government and tell Congress what specific regulations should be repealed. In trying to decide if I had anything worth testifying about, I did a little research. By signing the contract and bond for our Route 47 Warren County Project, I agreed to: 1. be governed by the following 15 acts: Clean water; Endangered Species Act; National Historic Preservation Act; Farmland Protection Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act; Work Hours Act of 1962; Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987; Public Works Employment Act of 1977; Federal-Aid Roads Act; Clean Air Act; Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Copeland Act; and Davis-Bacon Act. 2. abide by 16 sections in six titles of the Code of Federal Regulations; 3. be bound by three Executive Orders (11246, 11738, & 12549); 4. obey nine sections in six titles of the United States Code; 5. fill out Standard Form LLL (Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying) and Form PR-1391 (Federal Aid Highway Construction Contractors Annual EEO Report) and Form WH-347 (Certified Payroll); 6. comply with provisions of OSHA, Equal Employment Opportunity, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Unmarked Human Burial Sites, Missouri Solid Waste Management, Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 26, Section 404 Permit, NWP No. 4, Standard Grading Rules for West Coast Lumber, Hometown Plan, Non-Discrimination in Employment, Missouri Seed Law, Workman's Compensation Insurance, General Wage Order No. 38, and prevailing wage, community block grant development programs and other public laws and revised statutes of Missouri; and 7. deal with and meet the requirements of the following 12 agencies: National Register of Historic Places; State Historic Preservation Office; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; National Marine Fisheries Service; United States Army Corps of Engineers; Office of Federal Contract Compliance, United States Department of Labor; Federal Highway Administration; Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration; Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards; Employment and Training Administration, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, United States Department of Labor; and Missouri Department of Natural Resources. I'll let you know how my testimony goes. All I really wanted to do was build the bridge.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Lewis and Clark Discovery Expedition 1996: the reenactment of the world's most noted expedition. This 22-stop voyage will retrace the first 6 weeks of the path of the original expedition which began from St. Charles, MO, 192 years ago. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark's pursuit of discovery in the newly acquired Louisiana Territory revealed some 168 unknown species of flora and 128 types of animals. They used courage, hard work, and perseverance in overcoming extraordinary obstacles along their frontier exploration. The Lewis and Clark Discovery Expedition 1996, will highlight the historic, scientific, and cultural consequences of this celebrated journey. It will also examine several other important themes such as the development of the United States and the American character. The primary vehicle for this reenactment is a replica keelboat constructed by boatwright Glen Bishop. The Keelboat, which Bishop spent 10 years constructing, will contain numerous exhibits which highlight the historical, cultural, and scientific discoveries made by Lewis and Clark. It will retrace the original voyage, making stops along the path that the explorers followed during the Missouri leg of their journey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge this fine celebration of American history. I commend the members of the planning committee and all those involved for their hard work to help preserve the memory of this historic expedition.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the last gentleman who spoke from Massachusetts, that I would hope that that is not the case as well. When I have seen a number of times, I hope that is not the case here, is Members who indicate that they are for change in these areas but keep picking and picking and picking at proposals so that at the end of the day nothing gets done. So they try and have it both ways; say, yes, we are for it, but at the end of the day nothing is being done. I hope that is not happening here. Mr. Chairman, if there truly is not much difference between the two, what is in the bill and the gentleman's amendment, I do not know why we have to have the amendment, why it was offered and why we are fighting over there for so long. I would say to the gentleman I hope something gets done tonight. I hope this does not become a referendum over something that does not matter and instead is a referendum over what does matter for the people of this country, which is whether we are going to rein in HUD or not. That is the way that I see this bill.