Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 20, 2004, marked the 30- year anniversary of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus. Since 1974, United States policy on the Cyprus problem has been unsuccessful in its efforts to influence an agreeable resolution to this division. On May 1, 2004, Cyprus became a member of the European Union of families as a divided and occupied nation, its northern part being under illegal Turkish military occupation. The potential reunification of Cyprus is at a critical juncture. The Greek Cypriot ``no'' vote of 76 percent and the Turkish Cypriot ``yes'' vote of 65 percent is strong evidence of the unfair and unbalanced nature of the current version of the Annan Plan. If the yes and no votes had been close to the 50-50 mark, it might be argued that the plan is fair and balanced. At this point, however, no reasonable person can make such an argument. Accordingly, the United States and the United Nations must re-examine the key provisions of the Annan Plan in an effort to remedy the deficiencies that now plague the plan and obstruct the potential reunification of Cyprus. One deficiency of the Annan Plan is its failure to demilitarize Cyprus. There is no need for Turkish or Greek soldiers to remain in Cyprus. The United States should insist on full demilitarization now. The final Annan Plan actually provides for the permanent presence of 650 Turkish troops on Cyprus with the right of ``intervention'' by Turkey, a guarantor power under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements. With Cyprus now a full member of the EU, there is no need for Britain, Turkey or Greece to remain as guarantor powers. Quite inexplicably, the Annan Plan does not provide for the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus. It provides for the gradual withdrawal of Turkey's 35,000/40,000 troops over 14 years with 650 remaining permanently. Earlier versions of the Plan did not authorize any Turkish troops to remain. There is no security problem for the Turkish Cypriots. The opening of the Green Line for crossings in Nicosia since April 2003 has allowed Greek and Turkish Cypriots to interact on a regular basis, and this period has passed without major incident. As long ago as July 25, 1978, former Republican Senator Bob Dole proposed demilitarization on the Senate floor during the Senate debate on the amendment, which passed, to remove the remaining arms embargo on Turkey. Dole voted against lifting the embargo and noted that ``[n]egotiations between the two communities have remained stalemated over the presence of the Turkish occupation force.'' He stated: The great need for demilitarization of Cyprus, involving withdrawal of both Greek and Turkish forces, must be stressed. . . . Once demilitarization of Cyprus is achieved, then the intercommunal talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities over the territorial and political settlement will proceed much more smoothly. This must be the goal of all parties: to achieve demilitarization of Cyprus as soon as possible. It is beyond dispute that this aspect of the Annan Plan would actually serve to decrease stability and security on the island because it fails to fully demilitarize Cyprus at the same time that it also affirms intervention rights for Turkey. These provisions of the Annan Plan must be changed if the plan is to be accepted by both parties, and carried out to successfully achieve a peaceful, unified Cyprus.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, 6 million Americans are about to lose their right to overtime protection, police officers, firefighters, preschool teachers; and I believe that a majority of this House is ready to vote against that proposal and is ready to restrain that proposal from becoming law. I have, Mr. Speaker, to commend the majority because they have found a new way to subvert the will of the majority. On two occasions what the majority has done is permit a proposition to come to the floor, lose, as they did in the case of the Medicare vote, lose as they did in the case of protecting civil rights under an amendment to the PATRIOT Act, and then fix the result after they have lost. This time they have come up with a new strategy. Because the majority knows it will lose this vote on overtime, they are prohibiting the vote from coming to the floor in the first place. If the Labor-HHS appropriations bill were reported out of committee and brought to this floor, this House would get a chance to work its will and defeat this proposal that will deny 6 million Americans the right to overtime. I say, Mr. Speaker, to the majority, bring it to the floor. Let the House work its will. Let the majority protect the rights of 6 million Americans.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the students of Williamstown Middle School who have received the Principal's Award over the past two academic years. The Principal's Award is given to students who have earned straight A's for at least one academic quarter, clearly an accomplishment worthy of notice. As these young constituents have already realized, the importance of education should never be underestimated. These students have clearly shown their commitment to education and academic achievement, and are well on their way to becoming our nation's future leaders. I wish to congratulate these individuals for their firm dedication to learning, and urge them to continue along this path. During the 2002-2003 school year the Principal's Award was received by the following sixth graders: Sequia Adams Ferebee, Jennifer Annarelli, Brittany Arnold, David Barbalace, Kevin Bargeron, Victoria Becker, Jordan Bonder, Gillian Bradley, Krista Butler, Ashley D'Ambrosio, Nicholas Davis, Francesca Dougherty, Tiffany Fanelli, Sarah Fauvell, Kayla Gennarelli, Daniella Genovese, Nicole Goldsmith, Chelsea Grahamslaw, Courtney Grim, John Lafferty, Daniel Lang, Matthew Leonardis, Dena Mahoney, James Maldonado, John McCormick, Kevin McDonough, Kimberly Nothstein, Staven Ray, Victoria Rocco, Jody Salvatore, Timothy Schipske, Jaclyn Stewart, Nicholas Stola, Katie Trotter, Chris Whipple, Ashley Wilkinson, Gabrielle Wurdarski. In the seventh grade the following students received the award: Erika Abel, Kristen Antonelli, Rachel Brown, Krisitin Capasso, Grace Ann Charles, Arielle Dibling, Christina Fuscellano, Amber Hassan, Meeghan James, Jocelyn Jengehino, Amber Kane, Brian Kelly, Amanda Kimer, Brittany Kubat, Brian Lallier, Mandy Lei, Denay Morrison, Christine Oagaro, David Ofosu-Appiah, Daniel Palieri, Brielle Sneed, Michelle Talnagi, Frances Ulmer, Megan Wadsworth, Mark Washko, Tara Weeast, Collin Whipple. Eighth grade recipients included: Justin Abraham, Adam Brinkman, Heather Butler, Hollie Butler, Jamie Dougherty, Shady El Damaty, Eric Flinn, Angela Forjohn, Douglas Fuscia, Amanda Gregory, Lisa Guarrera, Josh Haynes, Anne Inacay, Robert Knecht, Sandra Lamplugh, Christopher Lewandowski, Anthony Lopez, Nicholas Marella, Anthony McCullough, Michael Mueller, Joseph Obraczewski, Frederick Powell, Niccolo Reggente, Kacey Richards, Sarah Sottile, Anthony Stola, Gerard Tigue, Michael Torres, Heather Vischoric, Amanda Williams, Arielle Williams, Laura Williams. During the 2003-2004 school year the following students of the sixth grade received the award: Emilie Albert, Douglas Blankenship, Amanda Branda, Stephanie Bradley, Jessica Bullman, Jamie Cattell, Mia DiFilippo, Amber Endres, Mariel Enriques, Caitlin Graham, Jospeh Gratton, Brandon Harner, Amy Harrington, Juliet Jengehino, Ashley Jones, Sarah Kee, Sean Kryston, Shannon Listman, Rachel Maiorano, Jessica Martinez, Robert Mele, Carly Moffa, Briana Molino, Nicholas Randazzo, Gabrielle Richardson, Jade Richardson, Christopher Rotella, Corrie Sellers, Veronica Shevlin, Jacob Sprengle, Caitlin Stewart, James Stewart, Jennifer Stief, Andrew Sudler, Amanda Tran, Alexander Vickers, Keyanah West, Alyssa Worstall. Seventh grade recipients included: Brittany Arnold, David Barbalace, Jordan Bonder, Gillian Bradley, Michelle DeCraene, Francesca Dougherty, Tiffany Fanelli, Sarah Favell, Danielle Genovese, Robert Giarnone, Jr., Courtney Grim, Jason Irlieh, Charlotte Kirkby, Kelli Kleinsmith, John Lefferty, Daniel Lang, Dena Mahonery, Kevin McDonough, Kimberly Nothstein, Sheeaa Rastogi, Steven Ray, Tanya Roberson, Victoria Rocoo, Jody Salvatore, Nicholas Stola, Katire Trotter, Crystal Uzdevenes. Recipents in the eighth grade were: Keleofa Bernard, Kristin Capasso, Grace Ann Charles, Jamie Curran, Christina Fuscellaro, Antonio Inacay, Brian Kelly, Michael Kessler, Amanda Kimex, Melissa Kortman, Julian Magner, Daniel Palmieri, Julianne Smith, Sharon Sudarsanan, Magan Wadsworth, Mark Washko, Tara Weeast, Collin Whipple. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in recognizing the Principal's Award recipients of Williamstown Middle School. Their accomplishments are truly deserving of national commendation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very gracious friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the story of boys and girls living on the street and starving to death in our culture is a matter of fiction. It is the story of Oliver Twist. But for huge numbers of people in the world today, it is not a matter of fiction; it is a matter of fact. Seventy percent of the world's population lives in countries where the per capita income in 1 year is equal to what Americans make in a month. Seventy percent of the people live in desperate poverty, and many of those people live in countries where the debt owed by those countries to Western lending institutions is huge. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their initiative in the Millennium Challenge Account. By putting $1.25 billion into debt relief for these struggling countries, this is not only an act of human mercy; it is an act of economic intelligence that will benefit our own country as well as the people living in these very troubled and destitute countries. So I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in the majority. I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), in the minority. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Chair would announce that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) has 7 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker I was not present on July 12, 2004, due to a train and bad weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on Holt Amendment to the Legislative Appropriations bill (rollcall 359), ``no'' on the Hefley Amendment to the Legislative Appropriations bill (rollcall 360), ``yes'' on the Motion to Recommit (rollcall 361), and ``yes'' on final passage of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill (rollcall 362).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lorraine Cephus of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and to celebrate her outstanding achievements as a runner. Lorraine was an avid high school athlete, playing softball and running track. She only began running seriously in her 30s after her two children were born and while her husband Louis, an Army colonel, was stationed in Germany. At 74 years old, the grandmother of two runs an astonishing six miles everyday. She has completed countless marathons, logging over 100,000 miles. Since 1976, she has completed 28 consecutive Marine Corp Marathons, the only women to ever accomplish this feat. While she competes in other races around the country, the Marine Corp Marathon has special significance to her, as the race passes Arlington National Cemetery where her beloved husband Louis is buried. Every year as she runs past the cemetery, Lorraine salutes and says a prayer for her late husband. People in her community know Lorraine not only for her extraordinary athleticism but for her friendly nature and sunny disposition. May she continue to serve as an inspiration to all of us to live a healthy and active lifestyle for many years to come. I congratulate Lorraine on her spectacular accomplishments, and wish her the best of luck as she trains to compete in her 29th Marine Corps Marathon this fall.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his leadership and hard work on this bill. I congratulate him, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and all those responsible for the passage of this very important bill. One of the most frustrating failures of local government is when there is a traffic fatality at an intersection and the residents of the community say, for years we have been warning that there was going to be a fatality at this intersection. How come you did not put a traffic light or a stop sign up before? Why did it take a fatality to get government to pay attention? This is a massive and serious equivalent at the national level of whether we should prevent the traffic accident by putting up the signal ahead of time. Although this bill is not perfect, it recognizes an issue that is not much talked about today but is very much looming on the horizon as a potential catastrophe for the country. As the gentleman from Texas said very eloquently just a few minutes ago, perhaps the most ominous and destructive terrorist attack that could occur on this country would be a terrorist attack using a biological weapon. Unlike chemical weapons, unlike radiological weapons, even unlike nuclear weapons, the threat of a bioweapon is not localized because very often a bioweapon uses as its carrier a human being. So the spread of a bioweapon attack will not be limited to a discrete local area. It will likely be spread throughout the country and throughout the world. This makes it even more urgent that antidotes that could cure those exposed to the attack or prevent people from being sickened or killed by the attack, that these antidotes be developed as rapidly as possible. I am particularly pleased that the committees involved worked with us to include in this bill language that will protect the interests of companies that begin the process of developing an antidote and then have their contract terminated for convenience because a better idea comes along from another vendor. It is a very important provision that will permit these investors in research to recover the funds that they put into the contract. Let me express three concerns about the bill, and I hope that we return once this is made law to improve these areas. One is what the gentleman from Texas talks about, particularly with respect to mutant or new strains of bioweapons that would not be handled by the antidotes developed under this bill. We need a much more rapid and focused effort to deal with those mutant or new strains. Second, I am very concerned that the liability provisions in this bill are not sufficiently protective of the companies that would step forward to address the need to create these Bioshield defenses. I am not at all convinced that the immunity is broad enough or dependable enough. Time will tell. If the immunity is not broad or dependable enough, we are going to have to revisit that issue. Finally, I am concerned, to the extent that funding under this bill is discretionary and not mandatory, the financial rewards that are necessary to induce a company to step forward and participate in this process may not be certain enough. An investor is not going to take a risk unless there is a guaranteed return. I think this bill takes a step in the right direction, but I am concerned it does not go far enough. I wholeheartedly support this bill. I am honored to have been a part of writing and pursuing the bill. I hope that the products produced as a result of this bill are never used. That would be the real measure of success. But, God forbid, if the day comes when they need to be used, let us be prepared. Let us not look upon ourselves and say, why did we not take action in the peaceful days before the attack when we had a chance to do so? This legislation is long overdue. I enthusiastically support it. I would ask colleagues on both the Republican and Democratic side to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that we may consider and support the McGovern amendment. What happened here yesterday was not an affront to the members of the minority. It was not even an affront to the 140 million people that we represent. It was an affront to the tradition of this institution that says that rules should reign over personal agendas. We all come here believing passionately in the rightness of our cause, and we fight passionately for victory for our causes. But we have learned that when we lose that fight, the right result is to come back tomorrow and fight again. When you lose, Mr. Speaker, the right result is not to wait until you can win by manipulating the rules. That is just plain wrong. And it has become a malignant practice here in this House. When we considered the Medicare legislation, probably the most important legislation this Congress will consider, the vote was held open for more than 3 hours because the majority lost the vote. And during those 3 hours, the majority took advantage of whatever leverage it had, and some of that leverage is now the subject of an investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It took advantage of every piece of leverage it had to alter the outcome of the vote. Yesterday, on a very significant vote regarding the civil liberties of the people of this country who go to a library or a bookstore, the majority lost the vote and was unwilling to settle for that response. We have a tradition in this institution and in this country. You fight fiercely for the things in which you believe; but when you lose, you lose, and the remedy is to come back tomorrow and fight again. The remedy is not to bend and subvert the rules so that you do not lose. Our party lost the majority in this House a decade ago because there was a perception that we had subverted some of those rules. You, my friends in the majority, are in danger not only of losing your majority, but you are in danger of jeopardizing something far more important, and that is a basic understanding in this country that we all play under the rules. Do not sacrifice the integrity of this institution again for some short-term, hallow political victory. Vote against the previous question and adopt the McGovern amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the newest inductees and two-year members of the National Junior Honor Society of Bell Oaks Upper Elementary School in Bellmawr, New Jersey. These students have earned this recognition due to their excellence both inside and outside the classroom, and they should be proud of their accomplishments. The National Junior Honor Society was established in 1929, 8 years after the establishment of the National Honor Society. Both organizations were established to recognize outstanding students who demonstrate excellence in the areas of Scholarship, Leadership, Service, and Character. Students are expected to demonstrate proficiency not just in their classroom studies, but in school activities and community service as well. Each of the recent inductees and current members of the Bell Oaks National Junior Honor Society is to be commended for their dedication to knowledge and service. On May 24 at 7 p.m. Bell Oaks Upper Elementary School inducted the following 7th Graders: Caitlin Concannon, Charles Dyer, David Funk, Breelynn Hammerle, Jake Huffner, John Ippolite, Maryam Jamil, Erica Lopez, Jacob McGranaghan, Stephen Miles, Joseph Newsham, Priyanka Patel, Charles Robinson, Mark Unger, Judith Wallen, Brett Walren, and Lidia Wilczynska. The 8th Graders inducted were Justin Borrelli, Bryan Cheeseman, Donovan Ortiz, Ashley Parker, Steven Sheehan, and Christopher Todd. The National Junior Honor Society Two Year Members are as follows: Michael Anthony, Hinnah Aslam, Lorin Barry, Joshua Bloomquist, Laura Buonpastore, Lauren Burmylo, Anthony DiLolle, Edward DiMattesa, Nicholas Fishman, Danielle Landis, Brittany Magnin, Michael Malason, Meghan Mitchell, Sean O'Donnell, Stephen Paul, Brittney Rehrig, Amanda Roop, Blair Rundsmom, Matthew Salvano, Jessie Sibiski, Thomas Teschko, and Britney Yocum. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating each of these students on their dedication to scholarship and commitment to community service. Their enthusiasm for learning and helping others is admirable, and I am certain that they will continue to excel in these areas and remain leaders in their community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some dangerous and potentially harmful conjectures that have been made by some of our colleagues in Congress regarding the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Our decision to go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision. The record shows that at various times the defeated Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons and desired to possess nuclear weapons. Failure to oust Saddam Hussein would have put the American people at a grave risk. Some have questioned the quality of intelligence that U.S. policy makers received prior to the start of the war in Iraq. I agree that this is a matter of grave importance that requires a complete and full public evaluation. Any faulty intelligence on such grave matters is a serious problem. If we are relying on the same potentially faulty intelligence to protect the lives of our troops still serving in Iraq, or to consider military action elsewhere in the world, that is a dangerous risk to our security and a grave flaw in our foreign policy decision making processes. While these matters are investigated, however, it is crucial that we do not recklessly suggest alternate reasons that the war was pursued. Some Members of Congress have made statements claiming that the true reason for this war was to move along the Administration's plan to secure a peaceful Israel. These statements are baseless, and quite divisive. While Israel, like the rest of the World, will surely benefit from a stable, democratic Iraq, this war was not entered into for Israel's benefit. Granted, a democratic force in the region will be welcome by the Israeli government, but a stable Iraq will be no means ensure an end to the dangers faced by our allies in Israel. Suggesting that the United States waged this war solely to advance its Middle East policies will only serve to increase the anti-Semitism that already permeates the area, and potentially increase the violence that the Israeli citizens have been forced to endure for years. It is true that, prior to the commencement of the War with Iraq, President Bush stated, ``A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.'' I fully agree with this statement, and feel that it is important to recognize that the spread of freedom and democracy in the region is of great benefit to the entire world, not just Israel. The spread of democracy will directly lead to the spread of peace. There has not been one instance in modern history where a democratic government has gone to war with another democratic government--not one. Achieving such a peaceful existence is of monumental importance to the United States, Israel, and all other nations opposed to violence and terror tactics. While I certainly do not expect each of my colleagues to agree with me on the question of whether or not we should have entered this war, I do urge all Members of Congress to think carefully about the potential effects that their statements may have, both on the war and on other subjects of a sensitive nature.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in recognition of the Lion's Club of Maple Shade, New Jersey as they celebrate 60 years of service to the township. This coming Sunday, July 10th, will mark the 60th anniversary of this great organization, which has become an important institution of community service in the local neighborhoods of Southern New Jersey. The International Association of Lions Clubs is the largest service organization in the world with over 1.4 million members in more than 43,000 clubs covering 182 countries and geographic areas. Lions Clubs are not social clubs, although there are social benefits to membership. Rather, Lions Club members give their time, skills and resources to raise funds for charitable giving both in their communities and internationally. The first organized meeting of the Maple Shade Lions Club was held in the Congregational Church on April 18, 1944. Arthur N. Cutler acted as temporary Chairman of the meeting and was later elected as the first President of the Maple Shade Lions. Since its inception, the Lion Club of Maple Shade has sponsored three clubs in New Jersey: Moorestown in April 1948, Burlington in February 1949, and Levittown (now Willingboro) in May 1959. The Maple Shade Lions Club regularly donates money, services and needed items to organizations and projects such as the Decker Liver Transplant Fund, the Guide Dog Foundation, Camp Happiness, Camp Marcella, Recording for the Blind, Association of Blind Athletes, Lions Eye Research Foundation, Delaware Valley Eye Bank, Eye Institute of New Jersey, and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. In addition, they provide walkers, canes, and wheelchairs, as well as free eye exams and glasses for individuals in need. The Lions also donate funds to the Maple Shade youth sports leagues and the local Boy and Girl Scouts. The Lions Club of Maple Shade has a simple motto: ``We Serve.'' The individual members of the Lions Club pride themselves on the many contributions that they have made to their community, and the citizens of Maple Shade owe them a sincere debt of gratitude for their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the Lions Club of Maple Shade, New Jersey on their 60 years of loyal service, and expressing appreciation for their continued efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of his amendment. When I was a child, the three largest employers in my district were a shipyard, a soup factory, and an electronics plant that made radios and television sets. Today, the three largest employers in my district are a mortgage company, a hospital, and the State government. I have seen what it means when your manufacturing base erodes and blows up and shrivels away. When the country tries to solve this very important problem, we need all voices heard; and it disappoints me that the administration is trying to tackle this problem belatedly, without hearing the two voices that are so very importantly added by this amendment: the steel industry, without which the country cannot defend itself and cannot continue as an industrial power; and the collectively bargained, duly elected voice of organized labor through labor unions. Now, I know that sometimes the steel industry disagrees with the administration and, often, organized labor disagrees with the administration. But in our country, we do not just listen to people with whom we agree; we welcome all points of view, all interests so that we can come up with the best policy solution for the country. The Kucinich amendment adds two very important voices: the steel industry and organized labor. Even if one does not agree with their positions on these issues, their positions ought to be heard as we approach the manufacturing atrophy of the United States of America. So I would urge everyone who wants all voices to be heard to vote for this amendment which is so very much in the tradition of good government in this country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time. And I rise to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for their cooperation on the issue of the Delaware River deepening. We have many friendships in our Delaware River region. We have a friendly disagreement about what to do with this project. I believe this project is the wrong thing to do for the taxpayers. The GAO has told us that for every dollar that we invest as federal taxpayers, we would only get back 43 cents. I think the project is wrong for the environment. It will stir up potentially toxic substances on the bottom of the river and create an enormous disposal problem, and I think it is unfair the way the dredge spoils are going to be disposed. The committee has heard our concerns and placed into this bill a very minor amount of funds that permits us in the region to work out our differences. I continue to strongly oppose the project and want to thank the committee for its assistance in this matter. I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), who has been a strong and active voice against this project. He has stood firmly for the concerns of his constituents so they are not dumped on. He has been a very worthy ally, and I want the Record to reflect that I am very pleased with his assistance and very grateful for his assistance in this matter. I believe this is a wrongful use of federal taxpayers' funds. I appreciate the fact there was a need to put a very small amount in the bill to keep the discussion going, but I want to thank the committee.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for putting this very important motion forward. The Republicans cannot win this argument in the world of reality, so they have created a world of illusion that they are speaking to today. One of their illusions is that this is a tax increase bill. If you make less than $1 million a year of taxable income, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with you. The second illusion is that this bill will have a devastating and crushing effect on those who do file more than $1 million a year of adjusted gross income. Well, first of all, we have heard the statistic over and over and over again about small businesses. Fewer than 4 percent of the small businesses in this country file more than $1 million a year of adjusted gross income. And for those that do, under this proposal, their taxes would be $24,000 a year lower than they were 3 years ago. This makes their tax cut smaller than it was; their taxes would still be $24,000 a year lower than they were 3 years ago. And the third illusion is that we are disrupting this masterful economic strategy that is bringing this boon to our country. Well, this masterful economic strategy has lost 1.9 million more jobs than it has created. The rate for people making more than $1 million a year that is in this bill is the strategy that resulted in 23 million more jobs being created than were lost. So much for the world of illusion. In the world of reality, the Republicans cannot explain this vote, if they vote no, because when they go to the VFW hall and they are asked by the members of the VFW why they are not doing something about reducing the waiting lines at the VA health clinics, they will not be able to explain why they did not vote for more money for VA health care. When they sit down with the members of the Board of Education in their towns and the board members say, why do you not fully fund special education, and they all sign letters that say they support that and they introduce bills that say they support that, they will not be able to explain why they did not vote for a $1 billion-plus increase in special education that would lower property taxes and go right to the local schools. When they visit with the environmental community in their hometowns, and they hear, why can you not do more to clean up the Superfund sites that are in our area, and why can you not do more to bring environmental progress to our area, they will not be able to explain why they voted against a bill that significantly increases investments in environmental protection. This bill is filled with all of the promises that everyone here makes: more veterans' health care, more money for education. When they visit the fire company and police department in their hometown and they are asked why those guys and women still do not have biochem suits and training to deal with the terrorist attack, they will not be able to explain why they voted against this bill, which adds money for those firefighters and first responders. So because they will not be able to explain this vote at the fire station or the Board of Education or the VFW hall or the local Sierra Club, they have created a world of illusion: It is a tax increase. No, it is not. It will crush small businesses. No, it will not. It will interfere with the masterful management of the U.S. economy by this administration, which has lost nearly 2 million more jobs than it has created. Mr. Speaker, if the argument against this bill is that it disrupts the Bush economic policy, I say that is the finest argument I could hear to vote yes on this bill. If there ever was a policy that needed disruption, this is the one. Vote yes for the things that you say that you support when you are back home.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner); the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle); the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our ranking member; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), ranking member of the subcommittee, for their outstanding work that will benefit my constituents and children throughout the country. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation and comity, and for working with us on this. I particularly want to thank the committee for incorporating three issues in this bill that I was involved in working on with members on both sides. The first is a provision that will permit school districts to more easily automatically enroll children in the child nutrition programs if they are eligible for some other assistance program that has similar or the same eligibility requirements. There are a lot of children who do not get enrolled because their moms and dads do not send the forms back or because there is some kinds of bureaucratic problem. This will help many, many children, and it is greatly appreciated. Secondly, I appreciate the committee's efforts to be sure that children who attend private for-profit pre-kindergarten programs are given full and equal opportunity to participate in this program. Third, I salute the committee leadership for their very artful and fair compromise on the issue of soy milk, which is important medically and culturally for many children and many families. This will permit parents who wish to make the choice of soy milk to make that choice. I also want to commend the staff on both sides of the aisle for their outstanding participation and help in this. I am proud to support this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend from California. One of the most important functions of any sovereign nation is determining who can enter the country and who cannot. In our country we balance many important values in making this decision. We have always been an open society that has been enriched by new citizens, by visitors and by those who come here to contribute to the great dynamism of the American economy. At the same time, we cannot be a country that has a welcome mat out for everyone in the world because it would suffocate the very dynamism of that economy. There obviously are security concerns. Most people in the world are very welcome in America because they are people who love peace and contribute. There are a few who are most definitely not welcome in America because they are security risks. Just as our country has to sort this problem out every day, on individual cases this problem must be sorted out every day. The people who begin the process of sorting this balance out are immigration information officers. I can think of no more public function, no more core public function than exercising the constitutional responsibility of controlling our borders, and the idea that this function would be delegated to someone who works for a for-profit firm strikes me as well beyond the realm of reason. When someone presents his or her papers to begin the process of getting into the country, all kinds of questions have to be asked. Are the papers true or fraudulent? This is what these officers deal with every day. Are the intentions of the person trying to enter the country munificent or harmful? This is a judgment that these officers have to make every day. The information people present to gain access to the country is very often private and important only to them, and respecting the privacy of the person who tries to get into the country is an important value that has to be protected every day. If questions arise about the veracity of someone's application, the officer needs to go to law enforcement or to intelligence agencies to figure out whether the person is whom he or she says they are. Are these functions we want performed by someone who is hired out? Can we exercise the degree of accountability for control of our borders that we need to exercise if the people who are exercising these functions are here this year but may not be here next year when a new contract is let? Can we be sure that the training that is necessary to balance these many competing concerns is going to be adequately given to officers who are not sworn employees of the United States? I do not think so. I understand the debate on privatization is over whether something is a core government function or not. I can scarcely think of a function that is more an example of a core governmental function than controlling access to our borders. Frankly, if controlling access to our borders is not a core governmental function, then running the Navy is not a core governmental function or conducting foreign intelligence is not a core governmental function or perhaps we should privatize diplomats, and instead of having ambassadors appointed by the President we should hire diplomatic arbitration services because it seems to me to be equally the case that it is a core governmental function. One could argue all one wants about efficiency, but there is a higher value here than efficiency, and that value is accountability in the discharge of our constitutional function in controlling our borders. This is not an area where the managers of the Department should have discretion because this is a clear case. The constitutional responsibility of controlling our borders is a pure public function, and it should be carried out by sworn employees who are men and women who are responsible to the public voters, responsible to this Congress and responsible for the future discharge of their responsibilities. So I thank my friend from California for offering her amendment. I think it is an excellent idea. I would urge Members from both sides to enthusiastically support the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). For the record, although I am proud to be a New Jerseyan, I would point out my district is about 80 miles away from New York City. It is really not part of the New York City metropolitan region; but I do not think that is the issue here, because this amendment is not about the New York City metropolitan region or Chicago or Seattle or Los Angeles. It is about the national interest. It is indisputably true that there is not a village or a hamlet or a town in America that is immune from a terrorist attack. It is indisputably true that the terrorists may choose to strike a rather small, obscure place simply to prove a point, that they can, and to spread the fear that is there. To address that problem, it is important to have some resources for every part of the country; and the chairman has put together a bill which very wisely does that. And I commend him for it, and I support him for it. But we cannot really legislate based on ``what if.'' We have to legislate based on ``what is.'' And the public record of the intelligence reports, not disclosing anything that is not on that public record, clearly indicates, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) said, a pattern by the Islamic racialists to focus their efforts on targets that would be known by a person who is on the street in Beirut because they want to make a point that they are striking the infidels. So they strike a symbol so that when it appears on international television, their horror and twisted victory can be understood by the audience to which they are playing. It is not a coincidence that on September 11 the symbols that were struck and the symbols that were targeted would be symbols that would be known throughout the so-called Arab street. That was the purpose. The public record of intelligence clearly can lead us to the conclusion that high-visibility, well-perceived targets are the most likely places for this kind of terror to strike. It is the national interest to prioritize the spending of money in these ways, not a parochial interest for people from large cities or from particular large cities. Very often we have supplemental appropriations bills come to the floor of this House, and they deal with wild fires in California, or they deal with floods in the rural Midwest, or they deal with natural catastrophes that happen throughout the country. It is our tradition and it is to our honor that we stand up and nearly to a man or to a woman vote to support that aid because our neighbors need it, and they need it more than we do. I have rarely in my time here heard a Member say that they will not support flood relief aid or hurricane relief aid for part of the country because that part of the country is getting too much. Instead, there is an acknowledgment that when one of our areas has a time of greater need, each of us rises to the occasion and vindicates the national interest in that way. The bill that is before us does not ignore the needs of rural America. It does not ignore the needs of the less populated areas of the country. I do believe that the decision the bill makes disproportionately funds those needs, however. And I do think the right allocation is to reflect the best judgment of the intelligence community and to adopt the amendment that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has put forth. The fundamental answer, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), is that we have not given enough resources for this problem overall. But we can not legislate based on what if. We have to legislate based on what is. And what is is the credible judgment of the intelligence community that high-population, high-target areas are the most vulnerable and most likely places for us to be assaulted. We should adopt the Sweeney amendment and reflect that good judgement.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to personally thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for their leadership and hard work on this. I know that the chairman has many competing priorities, and I know that he has done a masterful job in accommodating this very important priority, and I personally thank him for that. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my friend and neighbor, without whom none of this would have happened, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his skillful legislative work in bringing all this together and making this happen, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his energy on this issue at all times. I am honored to be part of it. Let me just make two brief comments. Two things we can be sure of: The first is when the next terrorist attack hits the United States the people who will benefit from this program will be the first ones to show up. They will be the first ones there, and because they are given these additional resources I am confident they will do an even better job than they already do. The second thing we can be sure of is that we will get every nickel's worth of value out of this $50 million. The paid departments, fully paid departments, are used to stretching every dime, and they will get maximum personal value out of this, and the largely volunteer departments, any small bit of money for people that make money by washing cars and running beef and beers, any bit of money is going to help them expand their ability to protect the community. So I am very grateful to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), ranking member; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I ask enthusiastically support the amendment. I ask for a large bipartisan vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman offer the gentleman more time to answer a question? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be given another 2 minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reaffirm that, that each one of these examples the chairman of the authorization committee used is not covered by the amendment. The fact of the matter is each one of those things that is listed is not barred by this amendment. What is barred by this amendment is to waste the taxpayers' money. People should vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman from New York's (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, amendment and urge its adoption. As is typical of a person who is a fine legislative craftsperson, this amendment fits the rules and is well-crafted to pass. I wish, and I think I share this wish with the gentlewoman from New York, that we could do even more; and I know she would do much more if that were a viable possibility. I support this amendment because I like to think of myself as being a fiscal conservative; and for those of us who believe that we should be careful stewards of the taxpayers' dollar, this amendment meets that test in two very important ways. First of all, arts organizations and humanities organizations are among the most efficient organizations I have ever seen. These are organizations for whom $5,000 or $10,000 can make the difference between a viable, vibrant program and no program at all. In an institution where billions of dollars are routinely cut, spent or otherwise allocated, these arts organizations stand in stark contrast because they are the kinds of institutions where a very small amount of money can make a very big difference. I know, Mr. Chairman, that we all have such organizations in our districts. I just heard my friend from North Carolina talk about some organizations in his. These are organizations that piece together volunteer in-kind contributions for men and women who paint sets and sell tickets and make costumes. They knit together that effort with a few dollars from a local bank or a charitable foundation with a small amount of support from the local, county, or State cultural and heritage commission, with private donations from individuals and families in the community. When they are $5,000 away from getting something done, very often it is this grant from this program that helps get that something done. So in terms of stretching the taxpayers' dollar, it is the most productive use. The recipients of these grants across the country are the experts at that, and they deserve this help. Second, as my friend from New York pointed out so well a few minutes ago, these expenditures are an investment in economic growth. There are so many cities and communities in our country, many of them in my State of New Jersey, that are focusing their downtown revitalization projects on the arts; that are focusing their job creation efforts on bringing people into shopping districts and business communities because there is a cultural festival, because there is a concert, because there is a new gallery opening; that art patrons bring traffic. They buy products; they buy goods and services. They eat at the restaurants. They create a proliferation of economic activity. We spend a lot of the people's money here. Some of it I do not think we spend as well as we should, but this is an entirely well-thought-out expenditure of the people's money. The final point I would make is that I applaud this amendment's support for the teaching and learning of history. It is one of the things that worries me about the future of our country, that so many of our citizens are not engaged in the study of our history, not engaged in an understanding of what our history means. This Republic is a magnificent experiment. It is a unique experiment in the history of mankind; and to truly appreciate the gift that we have been given in this Republic requires an understanding of the history that yielded this Republic. If one person is compelled to read about the Articles of Confederation or is compelled to read the great debates that gave rise to the Constitution of this country, if one person is made to think about how ancient principles of liberty and democracy apply in very turbulent modern times, then I think we have accomplished having something very important. A lot more than one person, many more than one person is going to have that opportunity as a result of this amendment. So I thank its author. I thank those on the other side of the aisle who stepped forward to support it, and I urge an affirmative vote in favor of the amendment. Modification to Amendments Offered by Ms. Slaughter