Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too wish to commend the gentleman from Indiana for his work on this resolution. It is an incredibly important advance that this Nation is observing in the entire area of educational improvement. I certainly am in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 310, which acknowledges and commends the charter school movement for its contribution to improving our Nation's public school system and calls for National Charter Schools Week to be established. As a former public school teacher at Drake Middle School in Colorado and as the Secretary of Education's regional representative in both the Reagan and Bush administration, I have firsthand experience in the trials and tribulations of teaching in the public school system in general. I also had the opportunity just recently, just over the break, to visit two charter schools in Colorado in my district; and it was a pleasure to be there and see how these schools are operating. One has been around since charter schools started in Colorado and Colorado was one of the first States in the Nation to have a charter school law on the books, and they are doing very well. They are doing very well. I have also seen the results on the other side of inflicting the many unfunded mandates on our Nation's public schools and believe the charter school movement is a direct result of the desire for parents to increase their involvement and control over their children's education. New charter schools have swept the country to the point of including 35 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and represent a clear change in how education is disseminated across this great Nation. There are nearly 1,700 charter schools across the country serving almost 400,000 children. Laboratories of learning are being established from coast to coast and the common denominator between them all is the staunch desire for local hands-on control by parents and teachers. From ``back to basic'' schools in Arizona to ``magnet programs'' in Colorado and even ``outcome-based education'' programs, they are all proving that there is not just one way to teach. This resolution supporting National Charter Schools Week must be used as a means of celebrating true diversity. Diversity in education, diversity in learning, diversity in thought. I would like to point out some of the results of Colorado's Charter School Program. In reading proficiency, the charter schools are at least 10 percentage points above the State average. In writing proficiency, they are significantly above the State average in both the fourth grade and seventh grade levels. While performance is not yet what it should be in the charter schools, they have proven to produce a significant increase in proficiency, resulting in a minimum 10 percent advantage over the average of the entire State. These same results can be found all across the country when charter schools and schools of choice are made available as an option. We will recall that 10 percent is the difference between two full letter grades in most schools. It takes students from average to above average and there is no better way to enhance self-esteem than to earn better grades. Mr. Speaker, I have here an article on Colorado's charter schools which appeared in the April 4 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette; an article on charter schools which appeared in the April 12 edition of The Hill; and a briefing paper entitled, ``How Washington Can Really Help Charter Schools,'' prepared by the Lexington Institute. I would like to submit all three of these into the Record. Mr. Speaker, I also have a list of States with laws supporting the implementation of charter schools and the strengths and weaknesses of each charter school program, and I will submit those for the Record as well. Supporting National Charter Schools Week lends credence to the proclamation that not everyone thinks alike and not everyone learns alike. Combined with the Charter Schools Expansion Act from the 105th Congress, it acknowledges the success of thinking out of the box by supporting and commending those communities who have chosen to take control of their own destiny. Mr. Speaker, I should also say there are attempts whenever we have something good happening in education, there is somebody out there that is going to try and stop it. And we have to make sure that the U.S. Department of Education and State departments of education throughout the Nation do not take advantage of the options they have in regulating State bureaucracies and State charter schools to try and stop it. [From the Colorado Springs Gazette, Apr. 4, 2000] Colorado Charter Schools Aren't Perfect, But They Get The Job Done (By Robert Holland) A recent report from the U.S. Department of Education documented the phenomenal growth of charter schools. But it took a state-level evaluation in Colorado to show how these largely autonomous public schools can work at their best. The federal Department of Education reported that 421 charter schools opened in the 12 months before September 1999--a 40 percent jump, the sharpest increase yet. In all, more than 1,700 charter schools have come into existence since 1991, and they serve a quarter of a million students. Organizers receive exemption from many bureaucratic rules in exchange for a written pledge that they will deliver academic results. In Colorado, charter schools clearly are living up to that promise. On average, charter students were scoring 10 to 16 percentage points above statewide averages, and three-fourths of charter schools also were out-performing their home districts and schools with comparable demographic profiles. Colorado is a hotbed of activism for school choice. Were it not for the vigorous ongoing advocacy of private-school vouchers by business leaders like Steve Schuck and political leaders like Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., it is doubtful that the public school establishment would be embracing charters nearly as ardently. Charters don't provide a full range of educational choice, but they are a start. The Colorado Education Department evaluated 51 charter schools that had been in operation at least two years. These schools constituted 3.3 percent of Colorado's public schools and served 13,000 students (1.9 percent of total enrollment). The Core Knowledge curriculum developed by University of Virginia English professor E.D. Hirsch Jr., a prominent critic of the school-of-education mentality, was by far the most popular model among Colorado charter organizers. Twenty- two of the 51 schools used Core Knowledge. And the study shows that their confidence was not misplaced: According to the study, 14 of them ``exceeded the expectations set for their performance,'' and the other eight ``generally met'' the expectations. On the whole the evaluators found the charter schools ``enjoy striking (some times extraordinary) levels of parent involvement,'' a factor universally valued as an ingredient in school success. As for reasons, the evaluators said that being able to seek out the school best for their child gave parents ``a greater sense of commitment'' to the school. In addition, parents appreciated that their schools welcomed their involvement and created opportunities for their participation. Here are comparisons of the proportions of students who scored ``proficient'' or higher on the Colorado Student Assessment Program: Third-grade reading: 77 percent of charter students; state average, 67 percent. Fourth-grade reading: 73 percent of charter students, state average, 59 percent. Fourth-grade writing: 49 percent of charter students, state average, 34 percent. Seventh-grade reading: 66 percent of charter students, state average, 56 percent. Seventh-grade writing: 57 percent of charter students; state average, 41 percent. The charters exhibited a kind of diversity that is sometimes overlooked: They ``were diverse in size, educational programs, educational philosophies, approach to governance, and assessment strategies. The diversity met the intent of the Colorado Charter Schools Act to offer new educational options to students and their parents.'' In the wake of distressing outbreaks of violence at large schools, many educators are calling for a return to small schools. Colorado's charter schools fill the bill: Only 6 percent of the charters had more than 500 students, while 51 percent enrolled fewer than 200 pupils. How much of a hand do parents have? Consider: Parents were represented on the governing boards of 90 percent of charter schools, and in 34 of the 47 charters reporting the composition of their boards, parents held a majority of seats.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, please let the Record reflect that on rollcall vote 128, it was my intention to vote ``no.'' The vote, ``yes,'' was recorded in error.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts about this. In many ways our experience was the same in terms of how we came to know this issue. I was reading a newspaper article out of Virginia where they had arrested a suspect for possession of narcotics. The amount of narcotics in the possession of this individual was quite significant. It was not just a baggy; it was like a truckload. In the past, any time that this kind of thing had happened before, any time that an individual with this much narcotics in his possession had been arrested, they had found a weapon with him. So they kept looking, because the police naturally assumed that he had to have one. When they did not find it initially, they kept pressing. Then they kept pressing him as to where it was, essentially why he did not have it. This went on for hours. Finally, the suspect, frustrated at being pummeled by the police, figuratively speaking, said, ``It is 5 years, man. It is 5 years, man.'' What he was, of course, saying to the policemen was that he had gotten the message, the message of Project Exile. If he had been caught with a firearm in the commission of the crime, in this case transportation of illegal narcotics, he would get a minimum of 5 years tacked on to anything else that he ended up with. Now, here was a, I cannot say convicted, but a suspect, someone who had been arrested, explaining it essentially to the rest of the world as to why he did not have a firearm in his possession. At that point in time when I read that article, I thought to myself, you know, this is pretty common sense stuff. No wonder it is so hard for many of us, maybe in the Congress of the United States or in the administration, to actually come to grips with the possibility that this could work. What we are saying to people, make it clear here, what Project Exile is saying, whether it is in Richmond, or now in Denver, Colorado, or in the other places that my colleague mentioned, what we are saying is if you use a gun in the commission of a crime or if you are in possession of an illegal firearm, you are going to look at hard time and you are going to look at a minimum of 5 years, and you are not getting out of it. Lo and behold, when you put this into effect, surprise, surprise, levels of gun violence begin to go down. They have gone down in Virginia; they are going down every place else where this has been put into place. So it is not theoretical. This is empirically proven to work. Again, it is such common sense stuff that you wonder why people have not really kind of warmed up to it. I wonder certainly why some of our colleagues from the other side today were so adamant in their opposition to it. I wondered why, frankly, as I was driving over here, I heard on the radio that the President of the United States referred to this bill, to the passage of it today, as a cruel joke. A joke. Well, let me tell you what the joke might be. It just may be, Mr. Speaker, that we have a joke being perpetrated on the American public. But it is not this bill. Let me tell you what that joke may in fact be. It may be the allusion to a desire on the part of the minority party and on the part of the President of the United States to actually have something work, to actually get to a solution; not the ultimate solution, of course. I am sure, even if we put this in place in every city in America, that there would still be some aspect of gun violence, but this is a positive step that we know works. Why would we be opposed to this? Why would we refer to it as a joke if in fact we really want a solution? But maybe, just maybe, that is the joke, that some people in this body and maybe even the President of the United States in fact do not want a solution, they want an issue to continue to debate into the campaign. If that is true, it is a cruel joke. But I will tell the Members what this bill is not: This bill is not a joke. This bill provides financial support to communities all over the country to do something about gun violence.

Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, it is such a good idea and so bipartisan in its original intent that in Colorado, actually, and this is another interesting point, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States today, as I say, called this a joke. Yet it is in fact his U.S. Attorneys who have put this in place in Richmond, Virginia, and in Denver, Colorado, attorneys appointed by this administration who do not believe that it is a joke, who believe that it is in fact a very good program. When we inaugurated this in Denver, I was there. I was invited to participate in the kickoff of the program. On the stage were a lot of individuals, but just let me name two. One was Jim Brady and one was Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, and Mr. Brady, of course, the unfortunate victim of an assassin's bullet who now, of course, is doing everything possible to bring about gun control legislation. Both of them were on the podium supporting Project Exile. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President would actually consider going to Mr. Brady and telling him that Project Exile is a joke. I doubt it. I doubt that he would do that, because in fact we know that this is not a joke. This may in fact work. Mr. Speaker, here are the Federal laws on guns. Here are the Colorado laws on guns. The point I make here, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not a lack of inventory that is the problem. I am not saying that maybe other gun laws would not be necessary. I am not saying that. I have actually voted on this floor, I have voted for other gun laws. I voted for the juvenile justice bill. Actually, it went down. I voted for it. I believed that those would be positive steps. So I am not telling the Members that nothing is necessary. However, I am saying that no one could suggest for a moment that it is a lack of gun law inventory that is the problem, that is causing all of the problem in America with regard to gun violence. It has been a problem with regard to enforcement. That is where we are. That is where we are coming down with this issue of Project Exile. We are telling people that we are in fact going to begin to enforce the laws on the books; again, a very logical, commonsense approach that is no joke.

Mr. TANCREDO. I sincerely appreciate my colleague's willingness to bring this point to the attention of our colleagues here, and hopefully to the general public, because this is one of those things that needs greater exposure. People have to understand what was done today, what was the purpose of this legislation, and what we hope to achieve based upon what has in fact happened where Project Exile has been put into place. Yet, it has been with the support or actually the inspiration of, the idea came from members of the administration who are now acting in the capacity of U.S. Attorneys. I give them full credit. There is no pride of authorship here. I did not come up with the idea of Project Exile. I wish I had. I did not. I simply am a supporter. A Democrat U.S. Attorney in Colorado held an event that I went to and gave as much support as I possibly could, because it works, because the concept is good. Again, it is not the only thing we can do, but it is an insult to suggest that this piece of legislation today is anything but an honest attempt on the part of the Members of this Congress to deal with the issue of gun violence in America.

Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman. It is a pleasure to be here.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning in strong support of H.R. 4051, the Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000. It will be coming to the floor today under suspension. This legislation seeks to build on Project Exile programs which started in Richmond, Virginia, in 1997 and using the existing law to go after criminals who illegally possess firearms or use firearms in the commission of a crime. Since the incorporation of Project Exile in Richmond, the program has spread throughout the entire State. Other cities and States have also taken up similar initiatives to rid their communities of gun wielding criminals. In fact, my own State of Colorado started a Project Exile program back in September and already we are beginning to see a rise in the number of prosecutions against criminals in violation of firearms law. H.R. 4051 would provide resources to the States that have sought to stringently enforce firearms laws and ensure a mandatory minimum sentence for criminals who violate such statutes. Likewise, these funds can be used to defray the costs associated with tougher enforcement stance, whether it be hiring more prosecutors or expanding jail space. At a time when our society is grappling with the plague of violence, I encourage Members of this body to pass H.R. 4051.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in the proud tradition of the $500 hammer, the $1,000 toilet seat and the $1 million outhouse, the FDA and this bill now bring us a hugely expensive Federal office building in Los Angeles. This building, 133,000 square feet, will cost us, when it is done both in construction and in land acquisition and design, some $53 million. That is an extraordinarily expensive piece of property, and as you can see by this picture here, it looks nothing like what one would consider to be an appropriate design building for a Federal Government agency. By the way, this amount, this $52 million, $53 million for this 133,000 square foot building does not include the cost of furniture, telecommunications, or security systems. It is just the building and the land. Yes, there are some laboratories in the building, but that does not account for the massive expense. It is the incredible opulence of this building, the building itself, a rendering of which, by the way, the architect proudly displays on his Web site, and proud he should be. Look at this thing. Does this look like a building designed with the slightest consideration for cost containment? Of course not. But why should anyone care. After all, it is just government money. Let us take this $20 million that they are asking this year and use it for debt reduction and not for pork production. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 90. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the artist rendering of the building that we presented here is the architect, the architect that has been hired by FDA. This we took off of his Web site. This is not our representation. This is the artist rendering the building that they are going to put on a piece of property that they have purchased for somewhere around $9.8 million is the cost they gave us for land acquisition and for some design. Let us assume that the design was for a million dollars. Let us assume that the architect got to us for a million dollars for the design. That still means that we paid almost, what, $800,000 or $900,000 an acre for the property on which this is going to sit. And after we do that, we are going to build a building that will cost us $100 to $300 a square foot. This is enormously expensive, incredibly opulent. This is not a conservative stewardship of tax dollars when it comes to building Federal buildings. And then let me say that my colleague has indicated what happens in this building and he leads us to believe that there is a great deal of concern that we should have if these people do not have all this room. There is almost, by the way, 700 square feet individual space per employee in this building. The GSA standard, by the way, runs to about 175 feet; and that is even including the expanse outside of one's work space, the average that the GSA indicates. This is a 700-square-foot- per-employee building. Let me tell my colleagues what is going to go on in this building that is so incredibly important to the health and safety of the Nation. We took this off of the FDA's Web site about what they do. This is what they describe as what will be going on in this building for the Office of Regulatory Affairs: Advises and assists the commissioner and other key officials in regulations; coordinates, interprets, and evaluates the agency's overall compliance efforts; stimulates awareness within the agency of the need for prompt and positive action to assure compliance; evaluates and coordinates all proposed legal actions to ascertain compliance; executes direct-line authority over all agency field operations; provides direction and counsel to the regional food and drug directors; develops and/or recommends to the commissioner policy programs plans. All this bureaucratic gobbledygook, which we know really and truly, when we get down to it, what is this all about but a lot of paper shuffling. We are not talking about a massive building with a great many laboratories in it. What has happened here is that they are consolidating two office buildings and one lab into this building. But the majority is office building, office building. Look at that office building. I ask my colleagues, how many buildings even here in Washington, DC, do we see that look like that? It is not the cost of what goes on inside that building necessarily or the construction of it that is so expensive, it is what it looks like. This is something again, even if it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, even if everything that my colleague has said is necessary, I ask, is this an emergency, on the level of the hurricane disaster, on the level of all the other things that we know to be in the true definition of the term emergency it is known to fit. But if some FDA employee has to go to a building that is less convenient, perhaps less opulent, certainly dustier and in a seedier neighborhood, because that is what they list here as being their big problem, they do not like the neighborhood where they presently are housed. They do not like the neighborhood. I am sorry about that. A lot of folks I know are not terribly pleased, but they do not have the luxury of just coming to the Congress and getting $52 million to move out. I should say to my colleagues that if that is what really prompts this kind of move, it is not an emergency, it should not be in here. If all the things that are true about the need for this kind of construction are there, then it should come through the regular process, go through the regular appropriations process and end up yea or nay on the floor. It should not be in this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The information that we have about this facility comes to us from the FDA. It is their own information. It is their own documentation. It is the rationale for their budget request. It states that restricted funds will serve to consolidate three district's sites, the laboratory on People Boulevard, the current district office in Irvine, and the San Pedro resident post. If that has changed and it is a different configuration than this, I will be happy to entertain that consideration, but that is what they said this is for. They also said that this replacement facility was going to house 75 laboratory staff and 120 office personnel at an estimated construction cost of $40.4 million. Again, $40.4 million for the building and the gentlewoman and I both know that the building will never come in at that amount. When was the last time a Federal building project ever came in at budget? But our best hope is $40.4 million. Again add the $9.8 million to that that we have spent for land and design, and we have got a building that is now approaching $400 per square foot in cost. This is extraordinary. I repeat, that if all of the information provided is inaccurate that we have here, if there is greater need than what we are able to identify on this floor and certainly than what has been able to be offered here on the other side as a justification for this expenditure, I suggest that all could have been done in an even more appropriate setting and, that is, the regular appropriations process, a committee of reference, not just an appropriations committee but an authorizing committee. The Citizens for Government Waste has identified this particular project as a particularly egregious example of government waste, and they are supporting the amendment. They and others have looked at this whole thing and recognize that once again it is not just the fact that we may need a building. I am not arguing that point. Some facility may be necessary. I certainly would not stand here and tell Members that all of the claims to the contrary are accurate, but I am saying that a building of this nature is what I am concerned about and a building this expensive. Eight hundred, $900,000 an acre for the building for 10 acres to build a 133,000 square foot building seems to me to be exorbitant. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I go back again to the information provided by the FDA about what exactly goes on in the Office of Regulatory Affairs for which this building is being constructed, the Office of Regulatory Affairs. I read the list. I certainly did not give a detailed description of each one of these things because, quite frankly, they are quite amorphous. But I assure Members that none of them, not one of the things identified on this entire list except the last thing that says operates the Federal medical products quality assurance program for the agency is even remotely connected to the kind of thing my colleague brings up about what FDA does. Then we went to the Web site to find out exactly what the medical products quality assurance staff does to determine just exactly how close it came to this quality control issue. Here is what they do. This is again from the FDA. The functional statement for the medical quality assurance staff are develop and maintain liaison with the government agencies procuring medical products, develop and manage operational agreements and systems, receive and process requests from other Federal agencies, maintain liaison, coordinate, direct field and headquarter activities relating to the governmentwide assurance program. Mr. Chairman, nothing in here, nothing they have given us certainly, would lead us to believe that any of the activities going on in this building reach the level of importance in terms of maintaining the food quality of this Nation that has been identified.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of National Poison Prevention Week, an event each and every parent ought to mark in big, bold letters on their calendar. Ever since 1962, we've set aside one week each year to raise awareness about accidental poisonings and how to prevent them. But we also know poison prevention is a round-the- clock, day-in, day-out concern. Between two and four million poisonings occur each year, sending thousands to the hospital. Most accidental poisonings occur in the home, and more than half of the victims each year are children. It is critical we all learn how to prevent children from accidentally gaining access to these products. The theme of this year's poison prevention campaign is ``Children Act Fast. So Do Poisons.'' Poisonings can occur in the blink of an eye, when parents or caregivers are briefly distracted by the telephone or doorbell, leaving curious children alone for a split second. Because poisons act quickly, quick action is needed to save the child's life. Often, the first and best response is to call the nearest Poison Control Center or local emergency personnel. Time after time they are quickly able to determine what the child has swallowed and what's the best remedy. How do they do it? How do they do it so fast? And most miraculously, how do they do it while a distraught parent waits and prays on the phone? Do these heroes have encyclopedic memories? No, but they have the next best thing. They have access to a comprehensive electronic database called POISINDEX which identifies and provides ingredient information with 1.2 million entries for commercial, pharmaceutical and biological substances. It also provides treatment protocols--or antidotes--for poisons. Every day, emergency teams are tapping into POISINDEX to get answers while a life hangs in the balance. I am proud to have MICROMEDEX and their 500 employees which provide such important products in my district. It is especially appropriate we recognize the value of this under-appreciated database as Congress prepares to take steps to prevent database piracy. MICROMEDEX, of Englewood, Colorado and the producer of POISINDEX, has grave concerns that unless we close a gap in the law its work could be stolen, an act of piracy that could endanger the safety of many people. Some might argue that the more widely we distribute information about poisons and their antidotes, the better. Although this notion is well intended, it is also misguided and could have serious consequences. Scientific knowledge is constantly moving forward, and as a result, medical information can rapidly go out-of-date. The POISINDEX team of 125 industry expert editors is dedicated--as a business and as corporate citizens--to providing unbiased information of unsurpassed breadth and depth. For 25 years they have invested a lot of time, money and effort doing precisely that. The problem is, a commitment to the integrity of the information is not necessarily shared by people who would pirate the contents of POISINDEX and distribute or sell them on the Internet or elsewhere. This is the type of ``sweat of the brow'' databases that Congress needs to prevent from being pi rated. If POISINDEX can be copied and distributed by pirates, it raises a truly frightening specter: the emergency team searching frantically for information, only to find it is incomplete, out-of-date or inaccurate. Imagine yourself as the parent in that nightmare. Legislation pending before the House, H.R. 354, of which I am a cosponsor, will prevent database piracy and ensure that POISINDEX will continue to help save lives. By preventing piracy, H.R. 354 maintains the incentives database publishers need to stay in business. It also encourages competition within this growing industry, which will lead to the creation of more high quality products. Yes, POISINDEX is an extreme example with potentially extreme consequences. But even in less dire cases, the principle is the same. Unless we do something about database piracy, we will undermine the commitment of producers to build and maintain the integrity and accuracy of the databases we depend on every day. We can all be grateful to MICROMEDEX for creating and maintaining such a vital product, and for showing how accurate information can literally save lives. It is the most graphic example I can imagine of how poison prevention and database protection go hand-in-hand. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this year's National Poison Prevention Week and timely action on H.R. 354. We must prevent database piracy and maintain the integrity of databases that are critical to us all. We owe that to every child and every parent who picks up that phone in their moment of distress.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, among the many other positive aspects of the Conservative Action Team budget that I am up here to applaud and support is something that is a little less sexy perhaps than tax cuts, a little less easy to understand perhaps than increases in defense appropriations or anything else; but it is something, nonetheless, that we need to address, and this CATs budget does, in fact, address it for the first time in a long time, the first time, as far as I know, ever, and that is the practice of providing funds, authorizing every single year, year in and year out, money for unauthorized programs. There is a process in this House that we are supposed to go through. The rule says that we cannot fund programs that are not authorized. Yet, year after year after year this has happened. Republicans, Democrats, it does not matter. This is not the way to provide fiscal responsibility. It is shirking our responsibility, if anything. For example, of the programs that we have been appropriating for but are not authorized, I just bring these few to your attention. The National Endowment for the Arts, $98 million funding received this year. It has not been authorized for 7 years. The National Endowment for Humanities has not been authorized for 7 years. The Federal Communications Commission, for 9 years. Family planning programs have not been authorized for 15 years. Power Marketing Administration, 16 years. Some of these are wonderful programs. They may be the most important things we do. But the fact is, unless we let the authorizing committees review what they are supposed to do, review them every few years, and unless we allow them to do it, we will never know.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 288, to recognize the importance of families and children in the United States, and to express support for the goals and ideas of National Family Day. You know, its no secret that the family is the most fundamental of society's institutions, for it is within the family setting that character, morality, responsibility, ability, and wisdom are nurtured best in children. Unfortunately, today, the family institution is being steadily dismantled, even held in disdain by many leaders in the political, academic and media elite. And the erosion has serious consequences: In 1950, for every 100 children born, 12 entered a broken family. Today, for every 100 children born, 60 will enter a broken family. Each year, about one million children experience the divorce of their parents. 1.25 million are born out of wedlock, and another 1.4 million are aborted. Child abuse is growing steadily and alarmingly sexual abuse amongst children is growing fastest of all. In short, Americans are literally turning against their children. But adults suffer as well from the breakdown of the family institution. Studies clearly show that those who divorce suffer shorter life expectancies, poorer physical and psychological health and lowered standards of living. In addition, research continues on the correlation between a family founded on a lifelong marriage and low incidences of crime, addiction, abuse, illness, and underachievement. Our country must focus national attention on problems whose roots lie in the breakdown of the family institution and marriage, as well as public policies that contribute to those problems. On the national level, over the last few years, Congress has begun to evaluate how the federal government's policies have been hostile to marriage and the family. Last month, the House overwhelmingly passed the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act, which will stop the government's practice of excessively taxing couples just because they are married. This will keep the IRS off the alter and provide more money for families that may mean a new washing machine, extra tuition money for a child, a three bedroom home or fixing the family car--this is real relief for working families. In 1997, we passed the $500-per-child tax credit, the most important policy advance for the family. And we enacted adoption and foster care reforms so that children are given permanent homes quickly and not left revolving in the child welfare system year after year. And in 1996, we reformed welfare ending the cycle of dependency for many. We ended the practice of having the government filling the roles of family, church and voluntary associations. This year, we will take up important legislation establishing education savings accounts permitting parents to put money aside for a child's education. But, beyond the beltway, beyond this Capitol, is where most of the changes are occurring--as is often the case. This is where the real change is taking place--and rightly so. Abstinence education to address the rising rates of out-of-wedlock births, counseling to address the rising rates of divorce and after- school programs to get kids off the street are happening throughout America. KidsPeace, a 117-year-old non-profit organization that directly helps over 2,000 children in crisis every day at 25 centers across the nation, and millions more through prevention and public education efforts, recognizes all of these facts and has created National Family Day. National Family Day is a relatively new, annual event held every March to honor and celebrate the importance of the American family. This year, it will focus attention on the family meal as a time to build healthy communication and lasting bonds with children. The amount of conversation and the level of interaction between parents and children has an enormous impact on a child's development. Even in intact families, however, children suffer from a lack of intimate time with their parents. One of the sad consequences of the breakdown of society today is that, to pay the bills or fulfill their higher expectations for material comforts, more mothers work outside of the home. This fact coupled with the numbers of single-parent families and the rising rate of divorce, means there has been a tragic reduction in ``family time.'' Adequate time with parents is critical for the development of every child, especially for self-esteem and confidence. The reduction of time between parents and children is cause for grave concern. It attenuates the most important relationship to a child and correspondingly derives him of the strength he derives from his parents. As Harvard University child psychiatrist Robert Cole puts it, ``The frenzied need of children to have possessions isn't only a function of the ads they see on TV. It's a function of their hunger for what they aren't getting--their parents time.'' By 1990, parents were, on average, available 10 hours less per week to their children than they were in 1980 and 40 percent less than they were in 1965. In a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers felt guilty about spending too little time with their children. The poll also found that 73 percent of all married couples would have one parent stay home full-time with the children if money were not the issue. I congratulate KidsPeace for their efforts to improve the family structure and call on my colleagues and everyone in our country to join with then in supporting efforts which will create stronger families.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado a little bit ago took the floor this morning to bemoan the fact that this Congress has done nothing, she says, this House has done nothing to pass gun control legislation. I must remind both her and the American people that, in fact, a comprehensive gun control bill was on the floor of this House last year, H.R. 2122. It did, in fact, have provisions to close the gun show loophole. It instituted a juvenile Brady. There was a ban on the importation of high-capacity clips. It mandated trigger locks. It was a comprehensive piece of legislation. It failed on this floor by a vote of 198 Democrat no votes to 82 Republican no votes. Now, why did this happen? It happened, Mr. Speaker, because in fact, with all the rhetoric aside, what the minority party wants here is not a solution to this problem but an issue in the next campaign.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's providing some time for me; and I appreciate him taking this hour to explain to the American public that there, in fact, is a difference. We have all heard the lament, Mr. Speaker, when I go home, and I am sure when all of my colleagues, every Member of Congress, goes home; and some time or other someone says something like this. You know, there really is not all that much difference between the two parties. There is not really a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. I have heard it. We all have heard it. Sometimes I probably have said it. But I must tell my colleagues that there is nothing that brings home the reality of the situation more than a budget resolution and nothing more that defines the differences between the two parties that, in fact, do exist than the budgets presented by the President of the United States, in this case, and by the Republican majority in response to it. On February 7, 2000, President Clinton and Vice President Gore submitted their budget for fiscal year 2001. Their budget raises taxes and fees on working families by $250 billion. It creates 84 new Federal programs. It places Government spending increases on ``auto pilot'' and, as usual, takes a pass on any serious reform of Social Security or Medicare. Now, that is the reality of the Democrat budget. So when we say things like there is not a dime's worth of difference, we may be right. There is not a dime's worth of difference. In this case, there are hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of difference between the two parties. Because the Republican party has, in fact, submitted a budget set on priorities, as my colleague from South Dakota and my colleague from Colorado has indicated. We have, in fact, established education, defense, the preservation of Social Security and debt reduction as priorities. These are not the priorities of the minority party. These are not the priorities of the President. We all recall the President of the United States standing right there, Mr. Speaker, where the Speaker is right now and telling the Nation not all that long ago that, in fact, ``the era of big Government was over.'' Now, words are supposed to have meaning. We are supposed to be able to define exactly what is meant when people use them. ``The era of big government is over.'' Perhaps, in fact, he was right. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in Clintonian double-speak this era of big Government is over and what we are anticipating now is the era of huge government. Maybe that is what he meant. I mean, that is the only way we can interpret the words as applied to his budget. Right? What in here, 84 new programs, $250 billion more of taxes, what indicates to anyone that there is smaller Government on the horizon? How about the following: These are taken directly out of the President's budget. These are proposals for new programs in an era of huge government, which he would like to see us enter into. Let us see, new programs: Increase Amtrak funding by creating a new capital grant program for high-speed rail funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. Even though, by the way, Congress passed legislation to reduce Amtrak's dependence on the Government. It goes on and on. I am not going to read all of them, just a few I pick out as I go through. Create a conservation security program; income payments to farmers who engage in ``voluntary environmental efforts''; provide subsidized banking services in low-income areas; encourage the creation of low- cost bank accounts; increase access to ATMs; and enhance financial education. All might be wonderful ideas. I mean, all these things sound great. What is the Federal Government's role in this and how do they fit an era of smaller government? How about funding greening the globe initiatives, increased debt for nature funding. Create an initiative to prevent the spread of HIV within African militaries. Fund a clean partnership. Build a visitors center, an interpretive center. And acquire lands to preserve World War II Japanese-American internment camps in the West. Provide homeless vouchers, set-aside incrementals. Provide welfare-to-work set-aside incrementals. Create a voucher success fund. Create a housing production fund. Create an Indian home ownership intermediary initiative. I mean, this all goes to Housing and Urban Development. Even though we know that HUD, of all the agencies of Government, and this is hard to say, I mean, when we are talking about the agencies that waste more of Government, I mean, I do not even know how we can prioritize it, it is so difficult. But let us look at what Congress discovered with HUD. They had hired hundreds of politically favored employees at salaries up to $100,000 a year each to promote department programs and publicize its activities. The department dubbed these things ``community builders.'' They have over 900 of these people, 10 percent of HUD's total staff, and these were never granted approval by Congress. The program was supposed to be reduced significantly and phased out by September 30, 1999. It has not happened. The President has asked for an increase in all of these things. I know we are coming to the end of this hour, and so I want to return to my colleague from Colorado for his closing comments. I just want to say this, that the next time anyone says to you there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, say, you know, you may be right because I think there are really billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of difference between the two parties, as evidenced by the budget. This is the real world. This is not the world of rhetoric. This is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. We can talk about era of less Government, but here is where we actually see what the President is talking about. Once again, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the President has, in fact, deceived the American public.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, what we are contemplating here in changing the minimum wage is in one sense I think unacceptable. I have already expressed my concerns about doing this audacious thing to believe for just a moment, even a second, that we in this body know what is the right amount of money to pay anybody for anything for any job that they do, but now we are contemplating doing even more damage by reducing the number of years in which this would occur. Increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.65 or $6.15 an hour over 2 years, as has been proposed, would be unparalleled. It would amount to a 44.7 percent increase in the minimum wage, or $1.90 per hour since 1996, when the minimum wage was $4.25. Congress has never raised the minimum wage by more than $1.05 per hour over a 5-year period, and that $1.05 an hour hike occurred between 1978 and 1982, when inflation was increasing by an average of 9.8 percent per year, far more than the 2.5 percent average rate over the last 5 years. Now, these are facts. These are economic facts. But I do not expect them to carry today. Because, of course, this entire debate is not over economic facts. It is over emotion and what feels good to many of our colleagues here, their ability to say again that we, this royal ``we'' have somehow increased the minimum wage, when, of course, we are not doing anything but forcing somebody else to pay an increase in the minimum wage, not us, not the Congress, are forcing employers to do that. And so, it is in a way senseless, I suppose, to try and argue statistics and facts. The fact is, as has been pointed out more than once, that most of the people who will actually benefit from such an increase are not those people most in need, not the ``working poor.'' They will not be the beneficiaries of this move. But it does not matter. It would not matter I think frankly if not a single person in America who was accurately classified as the ``working poor'' were the beneficiary of this particular piece of legislation. If not a single one of them benefitted, we would still do this. And the reason, of course, is because it sounds good, it plays well. We know that. We know exactly what happens when you take polls on this issue and you say to the general public, How do you feel about raising the minimum wage? Do you not think it is only right that somebody should be making x number of dollars an hour? And the response is always, oh, of course, sure, absolutely. Because, of course, there is no real understanding of the economic impact of something like this. Does anybody really think that this does not have them in the slightest inflationary tendency or impact? I mean the big ``I'' word, the thing that scares everybody to death that sends the stock market into tailspins every time Mr. Greenspan even mentions it, ``inflation.'' ``Inflation.'' But we are doing something here, of course, that is, in fact, inflationary. It does not matter. It will not matter because those kinds of arguments will not hold the day. I know that. I know where this bill is heading. I know where the votes are. But I have to plead with my colleagues to think carefully about the steps they take. Because now we are not just talking about making a huge mistake in, quote, increasing the starting wage, as if we knew that a dollar an hour over any period of time, a year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, as if we knew that that was right. That is what is amazing about this. We argue it as if we have some understanding of what this meant, of some internal mechanism in our own minds that says, yes, of course we know that there is some economic reason for us to do this, that the economy will prosper, that everybody will be better off as a result of this. But this is absolutely false, my colleagues, totally false. As mentioned before, even when we asked the most prestigious members of the academy, economists from all over the country who came to testify, in favor of increasing the minimum wage, by the way, they were not hostile witnesses in the committee, but when we asked them, on what basis did you arrive at the conclusion that a dollar was right, they said, there is no basis. There is absolutely nothing. It is just a good, round number. There is no economic reason for this. There is not even a moral justification for it. Because, as I say, we will not be improving the lives of the people that we have heard so much about on the floor of the House today. In fact, we may be doing damage to them. But we do not know that because, of course, we are trying to be the unseen hand in the market. We have made this assumption about the fact that we know exactly how to adjust the marketplace between an employer and employee. I do not doubt for a moment that there are people out there working for perhaps less than they are worth, and I certainly do not doubt for a moment that there are people out there working for more than they are worth. We have heard all about these people, heads of companies making these outrageous sums of money as if this has any relevance whatsoever to this particular piece of legislation. It of course does not. But just as we can concede that we do not know what is right for the highest wage earners to make, it is appropriate for us to concede that we do not know what is right for the lowest wage earners to make. We simply do not know that. Let us confess it. Let us tell the people the truth. We do not know if a dollar is right over a year, over 2 years, over 3, over 4, we have no idea. It sounds good, so, therefore, we are going to propose it.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, last night I watched in amazement as the owner of a company, Opening Lines, made it known in a 20/20 undercover investigation that his company is in the business of selling fetal tissue for profit. When asked by the actor posing as a potential investor how much they could make from selling body parts, Dr. Miles Jones, the owner of Opening Lines and a pathologist, stated, ``It is market force. It is whatever it can go for.'' He went on to say that a single fetus could make his company up to $2,500. Mr. Speaker, this is in blatant defiance of the law passed in 1993 under the NIH Reauthorization Act, namely that baby body parts cannot be sold for valuable consideration. The Hippocratic Oath has gone out the window and been replaced by greed. Dr. Jones went on further to state, over drinks and dinner at a fine restaurant, that his dream job would be to operate down in Mexico where laws are less stringent and where he could set up a system reminiscent of an assembly line. This makes me sick. I am grateful that the Subcommittee on Health and Environment is holding a hearing today, in fact, to look into this barbaric issue. It is time that Congress gets off the sidelines, sheds the light of day on people like Dr. Jones, or should I say a modern day Dr. Mengela.