Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend from Iowa (Mr. Leach). On page 380 of this report, the 9/11 Commission says, ``A trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with commercially available material, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit into a van like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of the World Trade Center in 1993. Such a bomb would level lower Manhattan.'' Where would people find such highly enriched uranium? Over the last 15 years, the Department of Energy and the military have been looking at 106 reactors throughout the world. In those 15 years, they have dealt with some of them, but there are 64 of these reactors left that use highly enriched uranium. At this pace, we will have converted those reactors to less low- enriched uranium, which cannot make a bomb, by the year 2019. We need to speed that up. The purpose of this amendment is to more than double the amount of money that is dedicated to the conversion of these reactors from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. Last year, the President provided about $24.7 million. Our amendment adds $27 million for that purpose this year. Where do we find the money? Well, this year's bill, which is a great bill, which I am going to support, adds about $27 million to the administrative accounts of the Department of Energy. So we take that $27 million increase in administrative costs, and we shift it towards this program of converting these potential nuclear bomb factories into low-enriched uranium. This does not cut the administrative expenses of the Department of Energy. It simply gives the Department about the same amount that it has, actually a tiny bit more, than it has in the present fiscal year. We need to prevent a nuclear 9/11. We will be able to convert about twice as many of these reactors from highly enriched uranium to low- enriched uranium if we adopt the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I am going to vote for the chairman's bill is because it has those increases, but I think we need to do more. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my co-author, my friend from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I simply would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the debate and again commend them for the increases they have in these accounts. I just respectfully believe we should do more, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed four votes on May 19th, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on defeating the Previous Question on H.Res. 821 (the Rule providing consideration for H.R. 5385--Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act); ``no'' on H.Res. 821 (the Rule providing consideration for H.R. 5385--Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act); ``yes'' on the Blumenauer Amendment (increasing appropriations for the clean up on closed military bases) and ``yes'' on H.R. 5385 (Military Quality of Life an Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on May 22, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1235 (Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005) and ``yea'' on H.R. 3858 (Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my coauthor, and salute him for his integrity for bringing this amendment under difficult circumstances. President Kennedy said 40 years ago or so, governing is choosing, and every time we make a choice, somebody doesn't like it. But when you avoid choices, that is how you wind up with an $8 trillion debt. That is how you wind up borrowing 25 percent of the money that you spend to run the government. It is always easier to say yes when people want to spend the public's money, but it is not always right; and here it isn't right. Since 1982, the taxpayers have put about $1 billion into building roads into this forest. We have gotten back $150 million. We should stop building these roads. That is what this amendment does. It does it artfully and correctly. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. It is my pleasure and honor to offer this amendment with him, and urge our colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chairman, the question in this amendment is whether or not the public should pay to build more roads in the Tongass National Forest. I think the answer is no. I think the answer is no for three reasons: First, building more roads would further put at risk what is truly a treasure, a jewel in the National Forest system. Environmentally, I think it simply makes no sense to build more of these roads. Second, it is a terrible investment for the taxpayers. Since 1982, the taxpayers have expended $850 million more than we have taken in in revenues from this investment. In fiscal year 2005 alone, the taxpayer cost was nearly $49 million, and the taxpayer revenue was about $500,000. I don't know any of my constituents who would make an investment of $49 million in a business that is only going to return $500,000 on the investment. Finally, building more roads in the Tongass National Forest is an unnecessary idea when it comes to the jobs that are involved. I think that we always should be involved and concerned about the jobs of any of our fellow citizens, no matter where they are, in what region. But the fact of the matter is, the roads that already exist in the Tongass National Forest open up an area of that forest that would permit the harvesting of those trees for years and years and years to come. A substantial amount of the trees that could be harvested in that section of the forest already open to roads have not yet been harvested. So I would urge our colleagues in both political parties to vote ``yes'' in order to preserve an important national environmental treasure, in order to continue with the jobs that are presently going on there, and, most importantly, to protect the wallets of our taxpayers. For every $100 that we spend to run the Federal Government, we only bring in $75 worth of revenue. We need to start to reduce what we spend. This is a great place to do that. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission said that a quantity of highly enriched uranium about the size of a grapefruit, if it were used to make a bomb that could be put in a van that could be driven into lower Manhattan, could level lower Manhattan by a nuclear weapon. Where you would you find this enriched uranium? There are 106 reactors in the former Soviet Union that use highly enriched uranium. Forty-two of them are being converted to the kind of uranium that can't be used to make a bomb. Sixty-four of them are still in operation today. Sixty-four of them are still a potential source of that bomb that could level lower Manhattan. We had an amendment that said for every $1,000 we are going to spend on the ballistic missile defense program, let us take $3 out of every $1,000 and spend it on cleaning up and shutting down those 64 reactors in the former Soviet Union. Do you think we should or not? This House won't get to make that decision because this amendment is not in order. If you ever need a reason to oppose this rule, there is your reason.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. In fact, I rise to support the amendment. The asymmetric threats that are based by our country today require a complex set of skills to successfully address those threats. Certainly the men and women of our Special Forces possess many of those skills. They do a fabulous job. And it is our job to try to assist them and facilitate them in their work. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment, I think, gives these American heroes one more tool, one more opportunity to excel. Asymmetric warfare certainly involves the use of force and the use of strategy on the battlefield. But it also solves intimate knowledge of sociology, language, history, physics, and perhaps other disciplines that go well beyond that. Our ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Skelton, has been a leading voice for military education throughout his time here. We think this amendment is consistent with Mr. Skelton's devotion to that principle. We want our Special Forces men and women not simply to be physically prepared, technologically armed and equipped but to have the intellectual tools necessary to do their job and defend the country. We believe this amendment serves those values well. We are pleased to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his very gracious yielding of time. I rise in support of a piece of legislation that I think deserves the support of each Member of this body. I thank Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton and the various subcommittee chairmen and members for their hard work on this bill. My reasons for supporting this bill are both local and global. Locally, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Saxton, chairman of our subcommittee, for his excellent work, along with Mr. LoBiondo, for inserting language which will put a stop to what I believe is an unwise and poorly thought out plan to dispose of the residue of VX nerve agent in the Delaware River adjoining our districts. I thank them for their leadership on that. More globally, the role of the Armed Forces of the United States is to act in conjunction with our diplomatic and other leaders to shape the world in which we live so it is safer for our people. And I think by any measure, this bill measures up to that very high standard. Most importantly, I am proud to support this bill because it significantly exceeds the pay increase for the people in uniform that was originally proposed. The original proposal under the President's budget was for a 2.2 percent increase in the base pay of those who serve our country. I commend both the majority and minority for finding the right ways to alter that request and increase it to 2.7 percent, far more in line with pay raises being received by people in the private sector in lines of work that are obviously less risky and stressful for the defense of our country. I also believe that this bill wisely invests in the information technologies and the intelligence gathering technologies that will serve us well in dealing with the asymmetric threats that our country faces and will surely face in the years ahead. I think this is a very positive foundation for the enactment of this bill. I will say that I hope that the Rules Committee finds it within its purview to permit the full House to debate some other measures about shaping the environment in which we live, with specific reference to the question of limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There is an amendment presently before the Rules Committee which speaks to that issue, which I would urge the Rules Committee to adopt so that we can have an argument about the best way to shape the future in which we find ourselves. But I will say this. There is unanimity that the best way to shape that future is to recruit, retain, reward, equip and take care of the brave Americans who step forward to serve this country and their families. I am very pleased that this has not become a partisan issue, that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to try to a achieve that promise, the recognition of that promise for the people who serve. So I am proud to support this bill because of what it does for the anonymous young Americans whose names we do not know usually, until something terrible happens to them. I hope that we never learn their names if that is the reason that we would hear them. But what they will learn from us is that their compensation, the care for their families will improve as a result of this bill that we support today.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, even though we are not in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, it surprised me to know, a little over a year ago to find that rather significant quantities of chemical weapons and the residue of chemical weapons had been dumped off the Atlantic coast at 19 different sites. Now, it is important to understand that this dumping took place before an international treaty prohibited such dumping, so the United States was not in violation of any of its international obligations. And it is important to understand that much of this dumping took place at a time when our own Federal and State laws were either lax or nonexistent with respect to the handling of such materials. The purpose of my amendment is most definitely not to point out any wrongdoing by the Department of Defense or the services. However, it is the purpose of my amendment to do something about the problem and finding out about the scope of the problem. We are talking here about arsenic, mustard gas, other very serious and very lethal substances which have been disposed of off of our coast over a period which dates back as far as World War I and went into the early part of the 1970s. Now, what to do about this question requires a calm, factual analysis. Frankly, there would be one reaction that would say, well, we should just go find where the stuff is and dig it up and do something with it. I am not an expert in this field, but I am enough of an expert to know that that kind of hasty reaction might do a lot more harm than good. So the bill already contains some extensive reporting requirements which requires the Department of Defense to tell us where such dump sites are, how long these various chemical weapons and residues have been there. My amendment adds one more requirement. It calls for the Department of Defense to do an epidemiological study of the impact, if any, on human health that has resulted from the disposal of these weapons over the years. The amendment does not prescribe a particular method of the study. It does not limit or expand any of the areas of inquiry. It says to the Department of Defense, use your best scientific judgment and produce for us epidemiological studies that will answer the question as to whether there has been any measurable adverse impact on human health as a result of these dumping practices that took place from the early part of the 20th century until the 1970s. The purpose of this study would then be to give us the facts that we need to determine the best course of action to protect human health. Now, that may be to simply leave the status quo as it is. It may be to enact some measures that would preclude people from going to these areas of the sea. It may necessitate some removal. I think it is very important though that we approach this problem based upon the best scientific evidence of the impact on human health and not based upon any reaction that is based upon fear or ignorance. So I would ask that the Members of the House support this amendment so that we may get these facts in front of us and deal with disposing of any threat to humanity that may exist. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I would actually prefer that he rephrase that so that the South Carolinians visit the New Jersey coast, which is obviously a superior vacation spot.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, on behalf of my friend from California, I offer her amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield as much time as she should consume to the author of the amendment, my friend from California.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on May 9th, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 1499 (the Heroes Earned Retirement Opportunities Act); ``yes'' on H.R. 5037 (the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act) and ``yes'' on H.R. 3829 (the Jack C. Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Designation Act).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on May 4th, 2006 because I had minor surgery. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on the Sanchez amendment which prohibits the current Customs and Border Protection (CBP) practice of granting expedited clearance to Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) members that have not had their security plans physically reviewed by CBP; ``yes'' on the Motion to Recommit which would require that 100% of shipping containers be scanned and sealed using the best available technology before being loaded onto ships destined for the United States; and ``yes'' on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, this morning, the democratically elected president of Taiwan, Mr. Chen Shui-bian finally received permission to stop in Anchorage--but not spend the night--on his way to South America. This is quite a change in plans for President Chen, who had hoped to meet with Members of Congress in New York on his way to Paraguay and Costa Rica, but whose trip was delayed for a day because the administration at first refused even this brief stopover. If you have been following this case, you would probably agree with me that this is no way to treat the democratically elected president of one of our staunchest allies in the Pacific. There are no laws or regulations that prevent leaders from Taiwan visiting the United States, but simply a policy of the administration that forbids President Chen and other Taiwanese officials from officially visiting the United States. What is the source of this restriction? Concern that the Chinese government will be displeased by any welcome of a Taiwanese official on our soil. However, this most recent self-imposed restriction goes even further than the previous policy I have spoken against. Last week, the Chinese urged us NOT to allow President Chen to land in the United States at all. I suppose that we can therefore view this Alaskan stop as a victory for U.S. sovereignty and relations with Taiwan. However, in the past President Chen has been allowed stops in Los Angeles, Houston, and New York. The final agreement allowed him to touch down and refuel in Alaska, but not even get off the plane--what an insult to a friend and partner of the U.S.A. I understand that President Chen will be allowed to pass through Honolulu, HI, next week on his way home from South America. I mean no disrespect to the fine States of Hawaii and Alaska, but the symbolism of keeping President Chen as far away from Washington, DC, as possible is unmistakable. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is no way to treat the elected president of one of our fellow democracies which happens to be one of our best friends in the region. Last month we invited the unelected leader of China to the White House. We presented with a 21 gun salute, and laid out the red carpet for him. But the democratically elected President of Taiwan we do not even let set foot on U.S. soil. What is wrong with this picture? I believe that we should work towards lifting all restrictions on high level visits from Taiwan including the President. This would have several benefits for both the United States and our friend Taiwan. First, we would for once and for all eradicate the necessity of complex, lengthy and, truly, humiliating-for-Taiwan negotiations about where and when President Chen would be able to refuel or travel in the United States. Secondly, being able to hear first-hand from Taiwanese officials would promote a balanced understanding of both sides of the Taiwan Strait issue for Congress, the Administration and the American public. Thirdly, we would reduce the ability of Beijing to politicize our valid relations with Taiwan. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we would extend to the President of Taiwan--and thus to the people of Taiwan--the respect and dignity they deserve. Next week, when President Chen travels home to Taiwan, I hope the administration will change its plans and allow President Chen to make a stopover in New York as he initially planned. It is my sincere belief that the United States needs to do a better job in nurturing and protecting the fragile democracy in Taiwan. We can do that by communicating directly with President Chen about how he sees the role of his country in promoting democracy around the world.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding, and I rise in support of his amendment. I am one of the Members of the minority party that wanted to vote to move this bill forward, and I said when I did there were things we needed to fix. Well, this is one of them, and voting for Mr. Miller's amendment is a great way to tell the conferees to fix it. ExxonMobil made the highest profit in the history of corporate America. What a lot of people don't know about it is that in 2005, ExxonMobil's pension plan was only 72 percent funded. For every $100 they needed for pensions, they only had $72. They did, however, find the money to pay a $98 million pension payment to their departing CEO. Now, this just doesn't seem right. A pension plan that is badly underfunded should not be making a huge payout of that description. So the majority set out to do something about it, and they did. Here is what the majority did. They said that if a plan is less than 80 percent funded, then the workers might have to give something up. They might have to give up their cost-of-living adjustment, they might have to give up the right to a lump sum payment when they retire. Just sort of spread the pain around. But the House provision also says that as long as the plan is at least 60 percent funded, you can do what was done for the CEO of ExxonMobil and pay him the Moon and the sky. Think about that for a minute. It was almost as if this proposal was written with this gentleman in mind, because the Exxon plan was 72 percent funded in 2005. That means that it was low enough that you could go to the rank-and-file and restrict and reduce their pension benefits but high enough that you could still make the $98 million jackpot payment to the departing CEO. This is indefensible. The Senate did something very different. The Senate said that what is good for the captain is good for the crew and vice versa. They listened to the President's admonition, and they have a provision that has a more precise and fair measure of equality. It says that if you are in a position where employee benefits have to be in some way restrained, and, by the way, those restraints are much less severe than those in the House bill, then so must there be restrictions on the executive. What would have happened if the provision that Mr. Miller supports and this House ought to support applied to ExxonMobil? Here is what would have happened: they would have said to the departing CEO: We are sorry. Because we haven't taken our record high profit and made our pension fund fully funded, you can't get your $98 million. So until the people who worked in the refineries and drove the trucks and put out the payroll and did all the things the rank-and-file does, until their pensions are taken care of, yours can't be either. This is supposed to be a Congress that follows the principles of family values. In my family, pain is equally shared. As a matter of fact, it is not equally shared. Those who are strongest and most able bear more pain than those who are weakest and least able. This is a distorted version of those values. So Mr. Miller is asking for simple equality. He is reflecting a provision that nearly a unanimous Senate supported. So should we. Vote ``yes'' for Mr. Miller's proposal, and bring back some sanity and justice to this system.