Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

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 would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for bringing this amendment to the floor. Mr. Chairman, for most of the day in this debate we have been debating the so-called faith-based initiative in this underlying grant program. It occurs to me that the Bush administration and the majority's unemployment relief program is a faith-based initiative. What they are saying to the unemployed workers of this country is, ``Have faith, things will get better.'' Saturday was the last day of January. For many of us it meant flipping another page over on the calendar or anticipating the Super Bowl game the next day. But for 375,000 Americans who used to work in steel mills or shipyards or auto plants or tech firms or retail stores, it meant that the next day was the beginning of one of the most anxious periods in their lives because, for them, this is the first week where there is no income at all. The mortgage payment does not stop. The insurance payments do not stop. The utility bills do not stop. The need to pay the grocery bills does not stop. But the one check that was coming into their house stopped on Saturday. And what the majority is saying is, Have faith, our job creation program will save the day. For the first time since Herbert Hoover was President, this administration will chalk up more jobs lost than gained in its 4-year term. Have faith. There is this $5.4 billion that is sitting out in the States. Have faith that someone will find a way to use it. I say to my colleagues, that is exactly the point as to why the Miller amendment is needed. The $5.4 billion is sitting there, but the people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits are not eligible to receive it, because under the laws of the plan, they cannot receive any more benefits. Have faith. Their faith is in us to change the law so that they become eligible for those benefits. Now, there are those who will say, well, they ought to be put back out on the labor market; it will help the economy. It will force down wages if more people flood into the labor market and go to work that way. There are jobs there. Look at the want ads. It is all people have to do. Mr. Chairman, these are the people that President Bush came to this House and talked about needing a new job training program, because the steel mill they used to work in is not open anymore, and they need to get trained to work in a whole new field that they have no training for. These are the people who worked for the tech boom companies that either do not exist or exist in Asia today, and they need new training. This needs to be more than a faith-based initiative. This is a modest but necessary proposal, to say to people who are out there, trying hard every day to find the next job, that we will provide them with a meager bridge to that future, enough to just hang on so maybe that their next trip is not to the bankruptcy court. I heard my friend talk about compassionate conservatism. This administration is neither compassionate nor conservative. An administration that is borrowing $30 for every $100 that it spends more is not conservative. And an administration that is turning its back on the 375,000 working Americans who lost their benefits last Saturday sure is not compassionate. We heard about germaneness, that this bill belongs under a different committee. Well, by all means, let us bring it up under the right committee and vote on the funding. This is the only way, because of the creativity of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), that this bill could be brought to the floor. Be compassionate, and be conservative. Vote in favor of the Miller amendment.

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 thank my friend and ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for the outstanding work they have done in authorizing the continuation of a very powerful and positive force in our community. I will support the Democratic substitute because it permits that work to go forward, but it does not contain a very troubling provision that I believe should be struck from the bill. There are few things that I hold more dearly in my life than my faith. I miss the weeks when I cannot attend my chosen church. I feel like something is missing in my life. I make an effort as much as I can that my children are exposed to their religious traditions so they can make their own choices about religion. I feel awfully blessed to live in a country where I can practice my faith as I see fit. It is one of the things that I most cherish about being an American. But I also cherish that I live in a country where the government can never, never force me to adopt a religious belief or to bend my religious belief because it is the will of the majority. There are few principles in American law that are without exception, but that is one of them. And I am glad that it is one of them. The provision that is in this bill, although I know that it stems from the best of intentions, and I know that in fact in many cases it would yield the best of results, is ultimately a provision that would do great mischief to this great balance of liberty that the framers of the Bill of Rights gave us in balancing the prohibition against the establishment of religion with the free exercise of religion. I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) when he says he presumes that most faith-based organizations most of the time want to do what is right with public money and with private money. That is obviously true. But the Bill of Rights is not about the majority of situations or the majority of people. It is about everyone's rights in every situation to be free from religious discrimination paid for and facilitated by public dollars. Here is the situation that gives me trouble and pause about this bill: One of the programs that is funded under this bill is the Meals on Wheels program, a terrific program where shut-ins and other people suffering with illness or infirmity can receive a hot meal in their community and in their home. Under this bill, as proposed, if a Meals on Wheels program were to be run by a church or a synagogue or a mosque, and that Meals on Wheels program was advertising for a van driver, not a Sunday school teacher, not a director of religious education, but a van driver, someone who is going to get in the van every day and deliver the meals, the church or the synagogue or the mosque could say, with our tax money, We will not consider you to drive the van if you are not a Catholic. We will not let you cook the dinners if you are not Jewish. We will not let you run the administrative part of the program if you are not a Muslim. With public money. Now, it is one of the cherished religious principles of this country that with its own money the church or the temple or the mosque can absolutely maintain that hiring practice, and it should. And I will never vote for the legislation that limits or repeals that right, because it is unconstitutional and it is wrong. But I also will never vote for the proposition that is before us today that says with my money and your money, Mr. Chairman, that a church or a temple or a mosque can refuse to hire someone because they do not fit the right religious profile. That is not right. The reason that we have a country is because people came across the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of years ago to escape a society where if you did not fit the religious conformity of the majority, you could not be a full partner in that society. That is why there is a United States of America. Now when people say, well, faith-based groups are excluded from community development programs because they cannot discriminate with public money on the basis of hiring and firing, that is not true. There are faith-based organizations that run Head Start centers and run Meals on Wheels programs and run homeless programs and job training programs, and they do so respecting the differences between the protected private right to choose whomever you want from your faith or not from your faith and the recognized public responsibility to spend money in such a way that does not discriminate. This is not a debate about motive. I know that the sponsors of this legislation on the majority side are not bigots and not interested in discrimination in any way, shape or form. I know that their motive, in fact, is to spread the good works of religious organizations in this country and I support that mission as well. But the best way to support and spread the good works of religious institutions in this country is not to entangle those institutions in the machinery of government. The best way to ensure the continued vitality of our churches and our temples and our mosques is to assure their continued independence. And the best way to assure their continued independence is not to ensnare them in the expenditure of public funds in discriminatory practices. I do not want my church to be able to take my tax money and tell people who are not a part of my church that they cannot come to work there in a federally funded program. I do not want that. And I certainly do not want someone taking any tax money and telling someone of my faith or some other faith that they cannot do the same thing as well. This is a well-intentioned provision, I am sure, but the results will be a mischief that we will regret for a very, very long time. The right course of action, Mr. Chairman, is to pass the Democratic substitute, move forward with the laudable programs under this bill, and retain the cherished tradition of the separation of church and State that has defined this country's success for so many years and so many generations.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, I want to make reference to the case of Bowen v. Kendrick which several times has been cited by the majority as proof for the proposition that the court has upheld provisions like these. That is not the case. It is very important to understand the difference between Bowen v. Kendrick and the bill that is before us. In fact, language in Bowen v. Kendrick indicates that there are suspicious constitutional problems with this bill. In Bowen v. Kendrick, the Congress had enacted the Adolescent Family Life Act which was designed to create grant programs for local agencies to counsel young people on issues of sexual relations, personal responsibility and the like. The statute did not expressly exclude religious organizations from receiving these grants. It was silent about the question of what religious organizations could do. There was a lawsuit brought to declare the statute unconstitutional on its face because it failed to exclude religious organizations. The Supreme Court held that the statute was not unconstitutional because it failed to exclude religious organizations. However, and this is important, one of the things that Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in his opinion was that one of the reasons that the Court concluded that that statute in Bowen v. Kendrick was not unconstitutional, they said, and I am quoting from the official summary of this in the case, however, there is no requirement that grantees, meaning the agencies receiving the funds under that bill, there is no requirement that grantees be affiliated with any religious denomination and the services to be provided under the act are not religious in character. In other words, what the Court, I think, is implying there is if that statute had said, as this one does, that an Episcopal agency that wants to do counseling of young people about issues of sexual relations can only engage in the teachings of that particular church, that that would have been suspect under the Constitution and probably unconstitutional. What the Court said in this case is, because there was no requirement that a particular denomination receive the grant, that it is okay. That is the precise opposite of what we are talking about here. This bill would authorize a church, a synagogue or a temple using Federal money to say, you can't drive the Meals on Wheels van if you are a Catholic. You can't wash the dishes in the soup kitchen if you are Jewish. You can only be a member of our church or our mosque or our temple using Federal funds to have this job. That is the opposite of what Bowen v. Kendrick says. The more accurate statement would be that the United States Supreme Court has not dealt with this issue. But the U.S. Supreme Court is not the only arbiter of constitutionality. On the first day of our session, we all raised our right hand on this floor and swore an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. With that oath comes a responsibility to interpret the proposals before us as to whether they are constitutional. I would urge my Federalist Society friends on the majority side, my strict constructionist friends on the majority side, to consider that oath before they cast this vote today. I believe strongly that this provision, which expressly authorizes the use of public money to discriminate on the basis of religion in granting employment, is unconstitutional. Irrespective of how one feels about the other merits here, I think that Members should vote for the Woolsey substitute on that basis.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment and yield to the author of the amendment for a point.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. In 1971, when I was 14 years old, in the spring of that year, one day my father came home from work from the shipyard at which he had worked for nearly 40 years and he brought home with him that day a layoff notice from the shipyard because we were no longer making enough money building the ships. That was a summer where he applied for a lot of jobs. He had to make, as I recall, a weekly visit to the unemployment office to pick up his check; and his benefits ran out in the fall of 1971. I was not quite old enough to understand what that meant, but I was old enough to remember the stress and anxiety my mother and father felt that fall; and I was also old enough to remember that somehow or another there was some good news that came that fall because the unemployment checks that my dad was picking up once a week were going to keep going for a while, to get us through the holiday season that year in 1971. He hung in there. He eventually got a part-time job and worked every day for the rest of his life, until he died in 1985 at the age of 75 years old. Government reached out and helped us that holiday season 32 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I know there are 1.3 million American families who feel today like we felt that day 32 years ago, not knowing whether the money was going to be there for us to have any kind of holiday at all, much less the money to pay our rent for the next month, to pay for our heat for the next month to survive on into the next year. There was money around here to pay for a solar heating experiment for a Hooters restaurant down South, there was plenty of money, necessary money in my opinion, to rebuild the wreckage of postwar Baghdad, there is certainly enough money for the 1.3 million American families who have already exhausted their unemployment benefits. Defeat the previous question. Let us bring this issue to the floor.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 19, I did not vote on the following measures, because of family commitments, and would like to include in the Record how I would have voted, had I been present: On H.R. 1006, I would have voted ``yea''; on H. Con. Res. 320, I would have voted ``yea''; on H.R. 3491, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 637, to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, I would have voted ``yea''; on H.R. 2420 I would have voted ``yea''; on H. Res. 427, I would have voted ``yea''; on H. Con. Res. 83, I would have voted ``yea''; on H. Con. Res. 288, I would have voted ``yea''; on H. Res. 393, I would have voted ``yea''; on H. Res. 423, I would have voted ``yea''; and on H.R. 3140, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Several Members of the majority have said that this is a historic morning. They are correct. History will record that this is the day that any pretense the majority had, the Republican Party had of fiscal responsibility, ended. Mr. Speaker, for every $100 we are spending to run our government tonight, we are only taking in $80, and you are taking every nickel out of the Social Security trust fund and then some to make up the difference. So what is your strategy to deal with this deficit? It is to add a $400 billion entitlement that you cannot pay for. You are using Social Security funds that are supposed to fund future retirements for our kids to pay for a sham prescription drug benefit for our grandparents. This borrowing will purchase a Trojan horse, a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry disguised as a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. I listened to your speeches when you came here 10 years ago and said we could not afford to expand entitlements, and many of us on our side stood with you and made sure that we did not do that. To have a real prescription drug benefit, you should repeal your sacred tax cut and pay for what is really necessary for America's seniors. Shame on the Republican Party for turning its back and releasing a torrent of red ink that we will pay for, for generations to come, when this bill metastasizes in the future. Oppose this ill- considered bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleague, the Honorable Bartlett in asking the members appointed as conferees of H.R. 1904 to preserve the language, approved by our Senate colleagues, enhancing the penalties for interstate commerce in cockfighting and dog fighting. Our freestanding legislation (H.R. 1532), which I have co- sponsored with Mr. Bartlett, already has the bipartisan support of 122 cosponsors, and we are confident of the strong support for this legislation in the House. The House has also previously approved an amendment to the farm bill that covered the core provision of our legislation: increasing the maximum jail time to allow for the imposition of felony-level penalties for violations of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. We are not aware of any organizational opposition to the legislation, except from groups and individuals directly involved in dogfighting and cockfighting activities. On the other hand, we have secured endorsements from a wide range of veterinary, animal welfare, agricultural, and law enforcement organizations. In fact, more than 80 state and local law enforcement agencies have endorsed this legislation, as a necessary complement to their law enforcement efforts. We believe that animal welfare warrants passage of the legislation. Both dogfighting and cockfighting involve animals pumped up with stimulants to make them more aggressive, whose handlers force them to keep fighting even as they suffer terrible injuries. Children are often exposed to these violent spectacles and taught that such animal suffering is enjoyable entertainment. Some dogfighters steal family pets to use as bait for training their dogs. Others abandon their fighting dogs, leaving them to roam and wreak havoc in our neighborhoods, or end up at animal shelters where they cannot be adopted due to their aggressive training. All in all, animal fighting is a brutal business that merits serious penalties. However, there is also an economic reason to enact this legislation. In the fall of 2002, there was an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease in southern California. The California state veterinarian has documented that the network of cockfighting enthusiasts in the Southwest was primarily responsible for the dramatic spread of this avian disease--which resulted in quarantines in California, Arizona, Nevada and Texas, and an extreme disruption of normal agricultural practices. Before the containment effort was completed, the federal government spent $200 million on containment and compensation, and ordered the killing of 3.8 million birds, primarily from commercial poultry operations. As a result, the Texas Poultry Federation and other agricultural organizations have embraced our legislation. By increasing the penalties for animal fighting, we may be able to shrink the size of the cockfighting industry and prevent future outbreaks of END, or other diseases that jeopardize our agriculture industry. I thank the conferees for their consideration and hope that they will agree to include the Senate-passed animal fighting provisions in the final Healthy Forests legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, a recent Gallup poll that asked Americans what keeps our country strong found some very interesting results. While 67 percent identified ``willingness to serve in the military'' as important to keeping America strong, 84 percent and 86 percent, respectively, identified ``high level of voting (in national elections)'' and ``having a well-educated populace''. Yet other polls show that our citizens' civic knowledge is low and that our voter participation is among the lowest in the world. A number of Americans, from my district and from virtually every other district across the country, are undertaking a major effort to keep our country strong, according to the definition expressed in the Gallup poll. They are working to keep Americans well educated about civic matters and to encourage citizen participation in our democracy. These patriotic Americans have joined with the Committee for Citizen Awareness (CCA) and other notable Americans like Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Constitutional author Caroline Kennedy in this effort. The CCA provides free, award-winning civic videotapes to America's high schools, cable television stations, community colleges, libraries and others in every congressional district in the country. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the efforts of the CCA and to individuals and organizations such as the following: Tom Beddow, Vice President of Public Affairs and Government Markets of 3M Company Donald J. Gillespie, President and CEO of A.M. Community Credit Union John Schofield, Chairman, President and CEO of Advanced Fibre Communications James W. Barner, President and CEO of Altoona Hospital Barney B. Chapman, Vice President of America First Credit Union Marite Plume, President and CEO of Argonne Credit Union Dr. G. William Benz, President of Ashland University Ricky A. Burke, Vice President of Metro Region Operations of Atmos Energy LuAnn C. Williams, Corporate Communication Officer of Bangor Hydro-Electric Company Dr. Michael Allkins, President of Bay De Noc Community College Dr. Robert Fisher, President of Belmont University Michael Cascone, Jr., Chairman, President, and CEO of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida Gary A. Regoli, President/CEO of Boeing Wichita Credit Union Truman L. Gates, Chief Executive Officer of Desert Regional Medical Center David Jacobstein, President and COO of Developers Diversified Realty Corp. Andrew ``Flip'' Flipowski, President and CEO of divine interVentures, inc. Vince R. Volpe, President of Dresser-Rand Doris Grose, President of Educaid, Wachovia Corporation Dr. Roger S. Newton, President and CEO of Esperion Therapeutics Marla K. Shepard, President and CEO of First Future Credit Union Robert Anestis, Chairman, President and CEO of Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. Patrick L. Taylor, CEO of General Electric Evendale Employees Federal Credit Union Dr. Craig Turner, President of Hardin-Simmons University Dr. Charles D. Dunn, President of Henderson State University Ray Romero, Chairman of Hickam Federal Credit Union Dr. Jean Goodnow, President of Illinois Valley Community College Andrew L. Farkas, Chairman and CEO of Insignia Financial Group Dr. Jerry W. Weber, President of Kankakee Community College Dr. Joseph G. Burke, President of Keuka College Dr. Linda Stegall, President of Kingwood College Thomas Fleming, Chairman of the Board of Kirkbride Center Walter Malinowski, President of Labat-Anderson Inc. Dr. L. Michael Metke, President of Lake Washington Technical College Hank Hernandez, CEO of Las Palmas Medical Center Brian T. Flynn, CEO of Manatee Memorial Hospital Mark Hillard, CEO of Maricopa Integrated Health System Sister Mary Reap, IHM, President of Marywood University Kenneth Rudzewick, President and CEO of Maspeth Federal Savings and Loan Association Frank VanderSloot, President and CEO of Melaleuca Advantage Federal Credit Union Aiken Regional Medical Centers Akzo Nobel, Inc. American Savings Foundation Anglo Gold Jerritt Canyon, Inc. ARROW Electronics, Inc. Aultman Health Foundation AvMed Healthplan Baltimore City Community College Bluebonnett Savings Bank Boston University Bridgewater State College Brinks Home Security Catholic Medical Center Central Ohio Technical College Chandler, Franklin & O'Bryan Chicago Patrolman's Federal Credit Union Christiana Care Health System Coastline Community Credit Union Columbia University Health Sciences Computer Sciences Corporation Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. Cuyahoga Falls General Hospital Fiorello H. Laguardia Comm. College First Community Bancshares, Inc. Flushing Savings Bank FMC Airport Systems Jetway Glendale Memorial Hospital Graceland University Grenada Lake Medical Center Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Harper-Wyman Company Hawaii State Federal Credit Union Holyoke Hospital Jewish Hospital College of Nursing Kindred Hospital Greensboro Laney College Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Merck & Co., Inc. Montreat College Nassau Educators Federal Credit Union National Park Medical Center North Brooklyn Health Network Northland Area Federal Credit Union Northwest Florida Community Hospital Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation O-Cedar Brands, Inc. Provena St. Mary's Hospital Santa Clara University Saturn Corporation Seven Rivers Community Hospital South Carolina State University St. John's Regional Medical Center The Rockefeller Group The Summit Federal Credit Union The University of Iowa Tri-County Technical College Utah Valley State College Valley Baptist Health System Washington County Health System Inc. Wells Fargo Bank WesCorp Wesleyan College Westinghouse Waste Isolation Division

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Albert H. Vierling, Jr., a community leader and veterans advocate from Berlin, New Jersey who died suddenly on October 24, 2003. A decorated Army Veteran of the Korean War, Al was a member of ANMAC VFW Post #6253 where he served as Service Officer and was the Commander for 12 years. He was a member, Service Officer, and past commander of American Legion Post #271. Al was the Commander of Camden County VFW District 1984-1985 receiving the All American District Commander Award. He was a 1977 founding member of the Camden County Veteran Advisory Committee. Al was a volunteer with the Camden County Veterans Affairs Office since 1990, becoming a part time employee with the Office while serving as Supervisor of Veterans Interment for Camden County. Al was also a leader in the greater Philadelphia labor community. Retiring in 1977, Al was the Shop Steward for Teamsters Union Local 628 of Philadelphia where he worked for over 25 years. He was the building maintenance supervisor for the borough of Berlin for over 10 years. Additionally, Al was very active in community athletics as a founder and past president of the Interboro Athletic Association, former coach of the Overbrook Cowboys, and former member and coach of the Berlin Athletic Association. Whether he was helping veterans navigate the Veterans Administration bureaucracy, selling poppies each May to raise money for South Jersey veterans or organizing scores of events to pay tribute to our nation's heroes, Mr. Vierling worked tirelessly to assist and honor veterans. Al did everything in his power to make sure that our government upheld the promises it made to veterans and that the American people did not forget the sacrifices made and the freedom won by those who served our nation in uniform. Additionally, on the athletic field, Al taught scores of South Jersey youth the value of hard work and dedication. Mr. Speaker, Al Vierling left the First Congressional District of New Jersey a better place. He touched the lives of hundreds of people in South Jersey. His lifelong service will not be forgotten.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a passionate believer in education as the cornerstone of democracy, once wrote, ``If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.'' James Madison, known as the ``father'' of the Constitution, wrote, ``A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.'' Conscientious Americans in our private sector, some of whom are in my congressional district, have heeded this message of Jefferson and Madison. They have joined the effort of the Committee for Citizen Awareness (CCA), a not-for-profit organization that provides free award winning civic videotapes to all our high schools, community colleges, community access cable television stations and to many libraries across the country. Over 30 million students and countless others have seen these civic videotapes. Some of our country's most notable citizens are participating in this effort. They include Secretary of State Colin Powell, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Constitutional author Caroline Kennedy, and CBS chief Washington correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer, to name a few. We are all indebted to the Americans in our private sector who are undertaking this important civic effort. I think the hundreds of my colleagues who have also personally participated in this civic activity would agree that our country's civic knowledge and, as a result, our freedom has been strengthened by the work of the CCA and the following contributing organizations: Tara Houser, Public Relations Manager of Boyd Collection, Ltd.; Dr. Millicent M. Valek, President of Brazosport College; Thomas Schmidt, President of Carl Sandburg College; J. Anthony Rose, President and CEO of CATAWBA Valley Hospital Medical Center; Dr. Mark John Tierno, President of Cazenovia College; Dr. David H. Roe, President of Central College; Dr. Larry Litecky, President of Century Community and Technical College; Larry Damm, General Manager of Cessna Employees Credit Union; Michael S. Boggs, CEO of Coliseum Health System; Ulis Williams, President of Compton Community College; Russ Owen, President--Global Infrastructure Services of Computer Sciences Corporation; Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President, and CEO of Connecticut Light & Power Company; Gloria M. Harrison, President of Crafton Hills College; Ricky D. Napper, President and CEO of Crittenden Health Systems; Michael B. Kitchen, President and CEO of CUNA Mutual Group; William D. Petasnick, President and CEO of Froedtert and Community Health; Dana Tindall, Senior Vice President, Legal, Regulatory and Government Affairs of GCI Communications; Bob Richard, Lexan Operations Manager of GE Plastics--Mount Vernon; Jeffrey L. Bleustein, Chairman and CEO of Harley-Davidson, Inc.; Scott Kaulukukui, Vice President of Marketing of HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union; Dr. Darnell Cole, President of Milwaukee Area Technical College; Dr. Julio S. Leon, President of Missouri Southern States College; Dr. Earl S. Richardson, President of Morgan State University; Marvin R. O'Quinn, Executive Vice President of the Western Region of Morristown Memorial Hospital; Harold E. Anderson, President and CEO of Moses Taylor Hospital; The Reverend Dr. Samuel Berry McKinney, Pastor Emeritus and Louise J. McKinney of Mount Zion Baptist Church of Seattle; Dr. Dennis Joslin, President, Nebraska Methodist College of Nebraska Methodist Hospital; Dr. Rosalie M. Mirenda, President of Neumann College; Fred W. Beaufait, President of New York City College of Technology; Seymour Sternberg, Chairman, President, and CEO of New York Life Insurance; Mark C. Anderson, President of Niagara Area Credit Union; Tom Rowland, Executive Vice President and General Manager of North Central Telephone Coop; Kay Stewart, President of North East Texas Credit Union; John A. Noer of Northern States Power Co. Combustion and Hydorgeneration; Dan DiMicco, President and CEO of Nucor Corporation; Daniel R. Moss, President and CEO of Oakland Catholic Credit Union; Marvin R. O'Quinn, Executive Vice President of the Western Region of Overlook Hospital; Dr. Edward Tomezsko, Campus Executive Officer of Penn State Delaware County; Dr. Davie Jane Gilmour, President of Pennsylvania College of Technology; J. Steven Whisler, CEO of Phelps Dodge Corporation; Dr. E. Grace Pilot, Co-Founder of Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc.; Robert ``Buzz'' W. Trafford, Managing Partner of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur; William Cavanaugh, President and CEO of Progress Energy; Robert F. Bregler, Executive Vice President of Publix Employees Federal Credit Union; Dr. Rodney D. Smith, President of Ramapo College of New Jersey; Hal Chilton, CEO of Redding Medical Center; Alan C. Henderson, President and CEO of Rehab Care Group; Steven L. Henderson, CEO of Rice Medical Center; Jeff H. Farver, President and CEO of San Antonio Federal Credit Union; Steven Fellows, President of San Gabriel Valley Medical Center; Richard Villareal, Financial Education Representative of San Mateo Credit Union; Richard P. Meduski, CEO of Savings Bank of Manchester; Dr. Rick Rogers, President of Shelton State Community College; Deborah A. Trapani, President and CEO of Sierra Point Credit Union; Jonathan J. Lerner, Esquire of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Ronald S. Owen, CEO of Southeast Alabama Medical Center; Dr. Barbara J. Crittenden, President of Southwestern Community College; Dr. Thomas E. Hines, President of Spoon River College; Peter E. Capobianco, President and CEO of St. Mary's Hospital at Amsterdam, NY; John Maher, CEO of St. Vincent's; Fred J. Whyte, President of Stihl Inc.; Richard N. Fine, M.D., Pediatrics Chairman of Stony Brook University Hospital; Michael J. Kaczenski, President/CEO of Sun East Federal Credit Union; Curt A. Cecala, CEO of TCT Federal Credit Union; Mr. Robert Allen, President and CEO of Teachers Federal Credit Union; Betty G. Hobbs, President and CEO of Tennessee Teachers Credit Union; Dr. Priscilla D. Slade, President of Texas Southern University; Charles V. Wait, Chairman, President and CEO of The Adirondack Trust Company; Bill Yoh, Regional President of The Day & Zimmermann Group, Inc.; William S. Stavropoulos, Chairman of The Dow Chemical Company; Jim Yates, Vice President and General Manager of The Gas Company of Hawaii; Stephen S. Mills, President and CEO of The New York Hospital Queens; Mike Pierce, CEO of TLC Federal Credit Union; Robert P. Randall, President and CEO of TRACO; Bill Leaver, President and CEO of Trinity Medical Center; John Gisler, President and CEO of Twin City Co-ops Federal Credit Union; C. Lance Terry, Senior Vice President of TXU Electric and Gas; Susan V. Juris, Vice President of University Hospitals Home Care Services, Inc.; Gwen Stafford, Vice President of Corporate Services of University Medical Center; Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor of University of California--Santa Cruz; Dr. Nancy Cantor, Chancellor of University of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign; Ron Applbaum, President of University of Southern Colorado; Loren W. Crabtree, Provost of University of Tennessee @ Knoxville; William S. Stavropoulos, Chairman, President and CEO of The Dow Chemical Company; Harry R. Jacobson, M.D., Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs of Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Hubert H. Hoosman, Jr., President and CEO of Vantage Credit Union; Lee D. Meyer, President of Variform Inc; Jane G. Watkins, President and CEO of Virginia Credit Union, Inc.; Frank E. Berrish, President and CEO of Visions Federal Credit Union; Sara Swee, Director of Corporate Communications of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Timothy R. Thyreen, President of Waynesburg College; Larry Weyers, President and CEO of WPS Resource Corporation; Robert Essner, President and CEO of Wyeth; Borgess Health Alliance, Inc.; Community & Mission Hospitals of Huntington Park; Cornell Companies, Inc.; Dana Corporation; East Jefferson General Hospital; Fluor Corporation; Fort Bliss Federal Credit Union; Franklin Regional Medical Center; Goodrich Company; Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center; Household International; Jamestown College; Kishwaukee Community Hospital; Lower Bucks Hospital; Memorial Hermann Healthcare System; Midway Hospital Medical Center; Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Murray State College; North Central Michigan College; Paradise Valley Hospital/Vanguard Health Systems; Porter Adventist Hospital; Ripon College; Rockwell Automation--Power Systems; Royal Ordnance North America, Inc.; ServiceMaster; Sharp Memorial Hospitals; South Texas Health System; Southern Regional Health System; Southwest General Hospital; Spalding University; St. Anthony Hospital; State University of New York at Buffalo; Syngenta Crop Protection; The Ohio State University--Lima; Tillamook People's Utility District; University of Alabama at Birmingham; University of Wisconsin--La Crosse; Western Michigan University; Whittier Hospital Medical Center.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Kentucky just said the majority is interested in outcomes. Well, let me tell you what the outcome of the No Child Left Behind Act has been for thousands of schools across America. This law, which has had great potential to create learning opportunities for children, is creating great havoc for the schools of America. Public educators across the country, who were told that they would receive more help if they needed it, are receiving lectures from the Department of Education about how to run their schools, mandates from the United States Congress telling them what they must do in their schools, and money that falls $8 billion short of the job that we say needs to be done. We said to these public educators, you must test and evaluate every child, every year, between the third grade and the eighth grade, and you, local taxpayers, should pay for it. That was not the commitment of the No Child Left Behind Act. They have been told that if your school falls into the category of a school that needs improvement, a definition that has been tortured beyond recognition by the Department of Education in its interpretation of this law, if you fall into such a category, you will get the money for the tutoring programs and the after-school programs and the parent academies that work to improve learning. But the money is not here, because we are $8 billion short. Governing is choosing, and I would suggest to the majority, here is your choice: You can let the No Child Left Behind Act with all of its flaws stay in place and force upon your constituents and mine local tax increases; or you can find the funds to meet the promise this Congress made to those local school districts and pay for the tests and pay for the mandates and pay for the services that are required. It is the great dilemma of the majority. The budget resolution it passed does not permit them to do so, because this country's educational future, as is the case with so many other priorities in this country, was squandered on the majority's tax cut so we can have a tax cut tilted toward the very wealthy in Washington. We will see increases on everyone else across the country to pay for the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. The right thing to do is to suspend the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act until the money is there to pay for those mandates. Otherwise, when the gentlewoman talks about local flexibility and local educators being able to buy computers and do tutoring programs, the money they would like to have for those computers and those tutoring programs is being spent on the No Child Left Behind Act. Support the resolution. Enforce the act properly.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker I would like to include, for the Record, two written statements on the No Child Left Behind Act. The first of these is an opinion piece detailing problems with the implementation of the NCLB, by Ms. Gail Cohen, a leader in the education community in southern New Jersey. The second piece is an opinion piece I wrote highlighting many of the same issues. The implementation of the NCLB Act has become a significant concern to our schools and our communities, and must be addressed immediately by the federal Department of Education. On the No Child Left Behind Act (By Gail Cohen) How did 75% of New Jersey's public high schools-including some of the highest performing schools in the state-find themselves on an early warning list for not making ``adequate yearly progress'' toward certain student achievement benchmarks? Welcome to public education in the era of the No Child Left Behind Act--the well-intended but poorly conceived federal legislation that actually has very little to do with individual student achievement. NCLB requires that all students meet proficiency levels on state tests by 2014. To reach 100% proficiency, states have set incremental benchmarks to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). These targets establish the percentage of students in each school--and the percentage of students in each of several subgroups within that school--who must score ``proficient'' or higher on state assessments. No educator could argue with the objective of raising achievement for all students. That's the focus of every decision made in good school districts. No educator could argue with a plan that says student progress should be assessed and schools should be held accountable for that progress. In good school districts, assessments are used to inform instruction and direct professional development. However, the NCLB pegs the success of a school to the performance of students in disaggregated subgroups on a single state-developed standardized test--a test itself which has been questioned. The federal government would have us use the industrial model of stamping out kids on a conveyor and assessing each in exactly the same way. Even Mother Nature has never achieved creation of two identical objects in this universe. All children can learn and, when given the appropriate supports, will demonstrate growth from year to year. For some students, measuring that growth may require an assessment different from the HSPA or other state standardized test. For example, a state-developed standardized assessment does not measure the progress of the autistic student who comes to school in September speaking just a few words and ends the year speaking complete sentences and developing social relationships. Has the school failed this student? Ask the student. What message are we sending to this child? Ask the parent, or the doctor who predicted the student would never get this far. Imagine being a teenager having moved to this country just over a year ago. Aside from all of the issues associated with adapting to a new country, culture, school and language, you are expected to pass the same test as the teenager who has grown up in the community his whole life. You may be proficient in mathematics--you may, in fact, excel at it. Should we expect the student to be fluent enough in the language after one year to pass the same test as his/her peers who were born in this country? Could our students pass these same requirements in another country? Clearly, the one-size-fits-all approach to assessment, as mandated by the NCLB, is unfair. Also unfair is the fact that the law paints an inaccurate picture of public education in our country. The legislation leaves its implementation details up to each individual state. So, for example, each state establishes its own benchmarks for Adequate Yearly Progress. Each state determines the number of students that must be in a subgroup in order for that subgroup's results to be counted. These variations make state-to-state comparisons nearly impossible. In New Jersey a sub-group's test results will only count toward adequate yearly progress if there are 20 or more students in that group. The schools that are not on the state's early warning list appear to be mostly smaller schools with fewer that 20 students in that group. In Pennsylvania, there have to be 40 students in a sub group to count. The reporting requirements of NCLB may cause communities to point to subgroups of students--our special education children, our children of poverty, our children of color--and say, ``You're the reason our schools are failing.'' How lucky we are in Cherry Hill to attract kids from neighboring urban areas, kids whose families are thrilled with the educational opportunities that our district provides. We know that the longer students are in Cherry Hill, the better they achieve. Under NCLB, after just a year in our district, those kids are expected to achieve proficiency, without regard to their background or the growth they have demonstrated since they arrived. The intent behind the ``No Child Left Behind'' legislation is good. However, if legislators and educators are truly interested in all students achieving, if we are truly interested in improving education, then we need to assess individual student progress over time using multiple measures. Op-Ed on No Child Left Behind (By Rep. Robert E. Andrews) The federal Department of Education is seriously abusing New Jersey's schools. The Department just released an early warning list of New Jersey schools that are ``failing'' federal standards, according to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As anyone who lives in South Jersey knows, there is something seriously wrong with any such list when it includes top-notch middle schools, such as Haddonfield, Washington Township, Medford and Evesham. The No Child Left Behind Act is a law with great potential to help children. But the Department of Education's implementation of the law fails to help anyone. There are two primary reasons for this failure. First, the Education Department has burdened school districts around the country with a ``one size fits all approach.'' Local communities know best how to run their school districts, and they should be left alone, when successful, to do their jobs. The second reason is a bias against public schools in some corners of the Bush Administration. By torturing the intent of the federal law, the Administration has been able to twist ``objective'' measures of progress into evidence of rapid decline. In so doing, the Administration has thrown public schools on the defensive. By making public schools appear unsuccessful, the Administration creates more rationale, and more momentum behind their anti-public school, pro-voucher agenda. The Department of Education has badly misinterpreted the law. The Department has made a lot of very good schools look very bad by insisting that schools test and evaluate children in programs for special education and English as a Second Language using the same tests as those taken by mainstream students. These students' test scores are included in the overall proficiency standards. We must help every child realize his or her potential, but these tests are not appropriate for these students. The law simply requires states to use appropriate standards for every child. The Department of Education can, and should, easily make this correction. The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to ensure high standards for our teachers. However, the law was not intended to interfere with successful state standards, such as we have in New Jersey. The correct interpretation of the bill, as intended by Congress, is to allow teachers, in states with high standards, to continue to be certified by their state. Again, the Federal Department of Education has wrongly implementing the law by demanding that our very best teachers meet a different set of federal standards. At a time of severe teacher shortages, this policy seems driven by an anti-public school bias, designed to discourage advancement in the profession, and to encourage the retirement of our longest serving public school teachers. The final problem with the No Child Left Behind Act is simply one of dollars and cents. When the law was passed, the Bush Administration agreed to provide adequate funding for education in exchange for strong accountability laws and tough standards. But in 2004, the Administration underfunds our schools by $8 billion, and then plans to impose strict sanctions on schools that don't meet the strict federal standards. Without adequate federal resources, South Jersey will likely experience an upward pressure on local property taxes, or face a public school system in chaos. In May, I met with educational leaders from around the State of New Jersey to discuss the problems of funding and federal implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Since then, these problems have become even more evident. I have called on the Bush Administration to correct these problems through the regulatory process. If no action is taken by the Department of Education to fix these problems, I am committed to correcting these faults through legislation. I have already spoken with the Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and he has acknowledged the problem. The No Child Left Behind Act has the potential to help students around the country. But unless the Department of Education infuses some badly-needed common sense into its rules, and unless the Bush Administration provides the money it has promised to our local schools, too many children will be left behind.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003, a bill that passed this body last week, but also to express my dismay that a non-controversial, bipartisan provision was stripped from that bill before this House had an opportunity to vote for it. It is my hope that this provision, which would stabilize small business defined benefit pension plans, can be included in any conference report that this House may be asked to consider this year. The provision, known as Section 415, would have replaced the 30-year Treasury bond rate with a fixed interest rate of 5.5 percent for purposes of the maximum cap on benefits under Internal Revenue Code section 415. In the case of a small business defined benefit plan, the maximum cap on benefits can have an enormous impact on funding, due to the small number of participants. The 30-year Treasury bond rate that business must currently use to calculate funding is extremely volatile, leading to unpredictable funding requirements. For example, just last year between March and September (only 6 months), the 30-year rate fluctuated by almost a full percentage point--96 basis points-- resulting in funding obligations for a benefit that varied by as much as $140,000. That may not be much to a large company, but it is significant to a small business. The cost of this unpredictability is choking off capital investments, new hires, higher wages, or better health care. The requirement to use an obsolete standard is depriving our economy of desperately needed capital at a time when our businesses and our workers need it most. The small business provision has bipartisan support both in the House and Senate, it has no impact on current rules for calculating lump sums for rank-and-file participants, and there does not appear to be any substantive objections to its inclusion. So I am dismayed that it would have been taken out of the larger, two year pension fix. I trust that as this process moves forward--in conference if there is an opportunity--we will be able to reattach this important small business provision to the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor local organizations throughout our great nation for their contributions to civic education. Estimates are that State governments have slashed over $11-15 billion from their education budgets this year. At the same time, public opinion surveys indicate that education is at the top of the list of issues of interest to American citizens. It is at times like this that we are particularly grateful that private sector individuals and organizations contribute to the education of America's youth. One such group is the Committee for Citizen Awareness, a not-for-profit organization that produces award- winning educational videotapes addressing civic subjects. In cooperation with organizations across America, they give these civic videotapes for free to high schools, community colleges, many libraries and community access cable television stations. Over 30 million students and countless others have viewed these award-winning videos, free of charge. At this moment in American history, when others are challenging our system of government, it is essential that our citizens understand their country's civic underpinnings. Helping to educate our citizens, particularly our young Americans, about these civic issues is indeed a noble and worthwhile goal. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in showing sincere gratitude to all organizations that have contributed to this effort, including: The Cooper Health System Dr. Mamie Howard Golladay, President of Sullivan County Community College Elizabeth N. Hamilton, President & CEO of Summit Credit Union Carole Biggers, Corporate Counsel of Syngenta Crop Protection Todd Hendricks, General Partner of T. H. Properties Dale Schumacher, President of Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union Loy M. Howard, President/CEO of Tanner Health System Wayne Mansur, President and CEO of Texoma Community Credit Union Paul M. Pantozzi, Chairman, President, and CEO of The Provident Bank Dr. James A. ``Red'' Duke, Trauma Surgeon of The University of Texas Health Science Center @ Houston Stephen P. Dexter, President and CEO of Thomas Memorial Hospital Robert B. Tracy, Jr., CEO of TPS Credit Union, Inc. Dan Kampen, President and CEO of U.S. Central Credit Union Dr. James Moeser, Chancellor of UNC at Chapel Hill Dr. Kathryn Martin, Chancellor of University of Minnesota Duluth Glen R. Kershner, COO/VP Business Development of Universal 1 Credit Union, Inc. Michael C. Engel, President and CEO of University of Kentucky Federal Credit Union Dr. John D. Stobo, President of University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Dr. Dan Johnson, President of University of Toledo Michael F. Ambrose, President and CEO of USAlliance Federal Credit Union Diana Dykstra, President and CEO of Vandenberg Federal Credit Union Albert G. Duff, Board of Directors of Ventura County Credit Union Dr. Bryan K. Blanchard, President of Vincennes University Dr. Gary S. Kaplan, Chairman and CEO of Virginia Mason Medical Center Nancy Farber, CEO of Washington Township Health Care District Dr. Christine Sobek, President of Waubonsee Community College Dr. Michael H. Gerwitz, Director of Pediatrics of Westchester Medical Center F. Nicholas Jacobs, President of Windber Medical Center Dr. Harold L. Martin, Sr., Chancellor of Winston-Salem State University Dr. Robert Lowdermilk, President of Wood College Douglas A. Fecher, President and CEO of Wright-Patt Credit Union Dr. Anthony Parker, President of Albany Technical College Lawrence E. Dewey, CEO of Allison Transmission Division General Motors Jude Thompson, Vice President and General Manager of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Dennis Smith, Associate Executive Director of Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute Dr. William Frame, President of Augsburg College Calvin E. Bellamy, Chairman of Bank Calumet Joel Allison, President and CEO of Baylor Health Care System Patrick Magoon, President and CEO of Children's Memorial Hospital Jeffery L. March, President and CEO of Citadel Federal Credit Union Dr. Karen A. Nicodemus, President of Cochise College Randy Segler, CEO of Comanche County Memorial Hospital Keith Spivey, Vice President of Branch Operations of EECU Denise Floyd, President/CEO of Fort Sill Federal Credit Union John N. Kastanis, President and CEO of Hospital for Joint Diseases R. Michael Barry, FACHE, Chief Executive Officer of Jupiter Medical Center Jean G. Leon, RNMPA, Executive Director of Kings County Hospital Center Jean M. Yokum, President and CEO of Langley Federal Credit Union Todd L. Swims, President & CEO of Leaders Credit Union Jose R. Sanchez, CSW, ACSW, Senior Vice President of Lincoln Medical & Mental Health Center Parker H. Petit, Chairman, President and CEO of Matria Healthcare, Inc. Thomas Rozek, President and CEO of Miami Children's Hospital Gregory K. Smith, President of Mountain State Blue Cross Blue Shield Kevin A. Johnson, CEO of Mountain View Hospital Laurence C. Hinsdale, President and CEO of NorthEast Medical Center Ed Piper, Ph.D., CEO of Onslow Memorial Hospital Niels Vernegaard, President/CEO of Parkridge Medical Center, Inc. Thomas F. Schutte, President of Pratt Institute Neil DeFeo, Chairman, President, and CEO of Remington Products Company LLC Timothy G. Rupert, President & CEO of RTI International Metals, Inc. James W. Henderson, Division Manager of RTI International Metals, Inc. Wallace Strickland, President and CEO of Rush Foundation Hospital Fred Fraizer, President and CEO of Saint Mary's Hospital Bob Peebles, CAO of Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers Dr. Steven Gamer, Chief Medical Officer of Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers Thom Clark, President and CEO of Saints Memorial Medical Center Bruce Rampage, President of St. Anthony Memorial Health Centers George Winn, President and CEO of St. Elizabeth Health Services Colleen L. Kannaday, President of St. Francis Hospital & Health Center Andrew S. Passeri, Ph.D., President and CEO of Adolescent Medicine of Staten Island University Hospital April C. Lee, M.D., Director of Adolescent Medicine of Staten Island University Hospital Catherine Ann Paura, CEO of The National Research Group, Inc. Dr. Catherine Bannerman, Medical Director, Quality Improvement of Torrance Memorial Medical Center Arlene Rak, President of UHHS/Bedford Medical Center Bruce L. Barnett, President and CEO of Education of Vantage Credit Union Dr. Peter C. Mehas, Superintendent, Fresno County Department of Education of Vantage Credit Union Richard Davis, Esquire, Partner of Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP Charles M. O'Brien, Jr., President and CEO of West Penn Allegheny Health System Richard Brvenik, President and CEO of Windham Community Memorial Hospital Dr. J.P. (Jack) London, Chairman, President and CEO of CACI International Inc. Bernard W. Dan, President and CEO of Chicago Board of Trade Dr. Michael Schwartz, President of Cleveland State University K. Peter Maneri, Vice President of Corporate Communications of Computer Sciences Corporation Gary J. Holt, President of Delta School of Business & Technology George L. Kerns, President and CEO of Digex Incorporated Dr. David G. Carter, President of Eastern Connecticut State University Joe Shearin, President and CEO of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. J.A. Lacy, President and CEO of FinishMaster, Inc. Jim Sartain, President and CEO of FirstCity Financial Corporation S. Dale High, President of High Industries Daniel J. Wetta, CEO of John Randolph Medical Center Dr. Betty Siegel, President of Kennesaw State University Dr. F. Javier Cevallos, President of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania Charles W. Thomas, President and CEO of Mid-Atlantic Federal Credit Union Mark Griffin, Executive Vice President of Nishikawa Standard Company Dr. David Sam, President, North Harris College of North Harris Montgomery Community College District Charles Florio, Ph.D., President of Northeast Texas Community College Gary Wehrle, President and CEO of Pacific Crest Bank Dr. Paul J. McCarthy, President of Prairie State College Barbara Berghoff, President and CEO of Professional Federal Credit Union Dr. John Waddell, President of St. Paul's College Michael T. Dan, Chairman, President and CEO of The Pittston Company W.R. Timken Jr., Chairman and CEO of The Timken Company Marv Athey, CEO/General Manager of Trico Electric Cooperative Bobbie Booker, Chairwoman of Tulsa Teachers Credit Union Bill Sterner, President/CEO of U of C Federal Credit Union Dr. Don Huff, President of Weatherford College Bob Worth, Bay Area Region President of Wells Fargo & Company Glen F. Post, President, Chairman and CEO of CenturyTel David R. Anderson, President and COO of American Family Insurance Robert S. Curtis, President and CEO of Ball Memorial Hospital Frank V. Murphy, President and CEO of BayCare Health System William Longfield, Chairman and CEO of C.R. Bard, Inc. Dr. Antoinette Iadarola, President of Cabrini College Deborah H. Trotter, President and CEO of Charlotte Fire Department Credit Union David Macoubrie, Esquire of Cleaveland, Macoubrie & Cox John A. Calderone, Ph.D. of Corona Regional Medical Center Paul Dell Uomo, CEO of Covenant Health Care System, Inc. Allan G. Komarek, Executive Director of Delano Regional Medical Center Dr. Bryant Cureton, President of Elmhurst College Kevin C. Martin, President & CEO of EMH Regional Healthcare System Lauren Rock, COO of Euclid Hospital Jim Tadvick, Senior Vice President of Farmers State Bank Gary Duncan, President and CEO of Freeman Health Systems George Irwin, President and CEO of Great Falls Bank a.k.a Greater Community Bank Carl J. Sorgatz, President of Hawthorne Credit Union Michael D. Means, FACHE, President and CEO of Health First Dr. Johnathan M. Astroth, President of Heartland Community College Norman F. Mitry, President and CEO of Heritage Valley Health System Thomas R. Martin, Senior Vice President of ITT Industries Father Edward Glynn, S.J., President of John Carroll University Steven Kazan, Managing Partner of Kazan McClain Edises Simon & Abrams.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lantos amendment. The issue here is bringing these young men and women home from Iraq when their mission is done as quickly as possible, as safely as possible, as many of them as possible. And that requires the job of reconstructing Iraq to get done. But the issue of whether there will be reconstruction is not a grant versus a loan. It is who is going to borrow the money to finish the reconstruction. The choice before us is whether the Iraqi people borrow the money and at the right time repay that money out of the proceeds from their $7 trillion worth of oil assets or whether the children of the United States repay the loan. The question is not a grant versus a loan. It is a loan owed by the citizens of Iraq or a loan owed by the citizens of the United States. This proposal takes the right approach. It says when the time is right, when the reconstruction will justify such an expenditure, this reconstruction should be in a loan taken out by the Iraqi people. It is the right way to bring the young men and women home safely from Iraq. I urge my colleagues, most especially those who spoke in favor of the earlier amendment by the gentleman from Indiana, to vote ``yes'' on the Obey-Lantos amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today in recognition of the 43rd anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus. On October 1, 1960, Cyprus broke free from 80 years of British colonial rule to become its own independent Republic. Despite the hardships that the people of Cyprus have had to endure over the past four decades, they now have one of the most vibrant economies in all of Europe, and remain committed to the core principles enshrined in the Cyprus Constitution that guarantee basic rights and freedoms to both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Over the past year, the people of Cyprus have had much to celebrate. The Republic was formally admitted into the European Union, the so- called Green Line that separates the southern, government-controlled portion of the island from the northern occupied territory was partially opened so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could explore the entirety of their homeland for the first time in nearly thirty years, and the Greek-Cypriots created and implemented a package of measures designed to assist their compatriots from the north in the areas of education, employment, healthcare, and trade. However, despite each of these positive advancements in the divided Republic, reunification of the island has yet to occur. Due to the obdurate stance of the Turkish-Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, negotiations have stalled and the United Nations has ceased its efforts to bring the two sides to an agreement. At this crucial juncture, it is absolutely imperative that the United States government continues to show support for reunification of Cyprus. Fueled by international support, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots will continue their calls for reunification, and the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot leadership may be persuaded to reconsider their positions. In an effort to advance the peace process in Cyprus, I have introduced a bill, H. Res. 320, which calls for the removal of Turkish troops from the island. Reunification negotiations would be greatly facilitated by demilitarization of the area, as this current threat of violence is certainly not conducive to a peaceful process. I strongly urge each of my colleagues to cosponsor this important resolution. In addition, I ask that my colleagues join me in calling upon the Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee to work in conference to ensure that Cyprus receives funding at the $15 million level as it has in past fiscal years. US funding for Cyprus is used primarily for bicommunal programs that aim to encourage cooperation between the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus. The continuation of these worthwhile programs is absolutely essential to the reunification process, and, because of this, US funding is needed now more than ever. As the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus celebrate the 43rd anniversary of their nation's independence, I remain hopeful that the coming year will bring further advancements towards the reunification that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots have desired for decades.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to take issue with report language included in H.R. 2557, the Water Resources and Development Act that endorses the Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project. Although the report language admits that ``close scrutiny revealed that the projected benefits of the project might not exceed the projected costs,'' it goes on to say that ``notwithstanding mathematical errors made by the Corps in its original economic analysis, further analysis has demonstrated that the project remains economically justified and the project is continuing.'' This defies all logic and much evidence to the contrary. The Delaware River dredging project remains a boondoggle. This ill- advised project continues to undergo tremendous scrutiny that raises more questions than it answers. In June of 2002 the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the Army Corps of Engineers grossly misrepresented the costs and benefits of the project. The GAO has determined that the economic analysis provided for this project contained a number of ``material errors,'' miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and used significantly outdated information.'' Based on the GAO findings, the benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is .49 to 1. Last fall the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection revoked the Army Corps of Engineers' coastal zone permit for this project. A few months later, during the 2002 Christmas holiday, the Army Corps of Engineers released its ``Comprehensive Economic Reanalysis.'' This report represents an attempt by the Army Corps of Engineers to rework the benefit to cost ratio using a significantly lower discount rate than they have used in all prior cost analysis of the project, a possible violation of their own policy. Additionally, there remain concerns that the benefits of the project continue to be overstated. A July 14, 2003 report by Dr. Robert Stearns, a former high-ranking Army Corps of Engineers official, says the project will lose money. The report says the Army Corps of Engineers' reanalysis, ``does not address the outstanding issues or the questions raised regarding the project. In fact, the reanalysis raises more questions about his project--questions raised by the independent review panel, questions regarding the process, and questions about the data and models used to justify the project.'' Dr. Stearns estimated the project will lose between 50 cents and 25 cents for every dollar the project costs, and could easily fail to meet the cost-benefit test if even one major assertion does not occur. I will list just a few of the many problems in the Army Corps of Engineers' reanalysis. One, the Army Corps of Engineers has still not calculated the dramatically higher expense of alternatives to disposing spoils along the river in South Jersey. Second, Army Corps of Engineers economists selectively discounted negative reactions from refiners, who are to be the project's prime beneficiaries by being able to bring tankers up river more fully laden with oil. Third, they used an ``inappropriately low'' discount rate, in calculating the benefits. And fourth, the analysis failed to account for assertions by Maritrans, a company that offloads oil from tankers onto barges, that the project likely will not reduce the number of barges it needs. From an environmental standpoint, there continue to be many questions about the impact on water quality, dredge spoil disposal, and wildlife and aquatic life. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently expressed concerns that contaminants in the Delaware River could adversely affect the bald eagle or peregrine falcon population. There remain serious concerns about whether the Army Corps of Engineers has fulfilled the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is of critical concern considering that much of the project falls in a portion of New Jersey that is in severe non-attainment for ozone. On September 11, 2003, in his Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1424, the FY04 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, President Bush offered more harsh words for this project. The statement expresses concern ``that the bill includes excessive funding for studies and design of potential new projects, which would add to the backlog and could unrealistically raise sponsor expectations for near- term construction starts.'' The President further objects to the appropriation of ``over $150 million to other work that raises policy concerns, such as directing funds for construction for the Delaware River Main Channel'' project. Mr. Chairman, the Delaware River dredging project is not economically justified and should not move forward.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today in recognition of Ms. Wanda Ryan who has taught for 40 years with perfect attendance at the George Washington School located in Camden, New Jersey, in my District. Ms. Ryan is a shining example of what educators of today should be. Ms. Ryan had only one leave of absence to give birth, 28 years ago, to her daughter. She went home from work one day and called her doctor with labor pains. The doctor admitted her to the hospital that evening and she gave birth to her daughter. She took a six week maternity leave of absence. Barring the birth of her daughter, Ms. Ryan has not missed a day of school in her 40 years of teaching 1st grade at the George Washington School. Ms. Ryan has acted as a teacher-mentor over the years, providing wisdom and knowledge to share with her fellow educators. For Mr. Malcolm Adler, Principal at George Washington, Ms. Ryan serves as an exemplar through which he instills the values of dedication and service in new teachers. There are no plans for retirement in Ms. Ryan's future. Her continued passion and dedication have recently earned her outstanding evaluations from her supervisor and Principal. Ms. Ryan is also well respected by her colleagues at George Washington who last year voted her ``Teacher of the Year.'' Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Wanda Ryan on her dedicated service to the public school system, the George Washington School, the City of Camden, and the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply congratulate our colleagues from South Carolina and to urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend and congratulate the gentlemen from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), (Mr. Spratt), (Mr. Clyburn), (Mr. DeMint), (Mr. Brown), and my friend (Mr. Wilson) for their authorship and sponsorship of this resolution. I can understand why the South Carolina delegation is so justifiably proud of the young men who have achieved so much on the links. Among the very most important classrooms, teaching places in our system of our higher education, is the field of athletic competition. There is a reason why we want to encourage colleges and universities around our country to continue educating young men and women on playing fields; and the achievements of the young men of the Clemson University men's golf team are an example of that principle. I must say parenthetically one of the issues that I am proud of is my alma mater, which did not win the NCAA golf tournament, Bucknell University, was recently noted for graduating 100 percent of its student athletes who participate in NCAA sports, and that is an aspiration that I know is shared around the country. These young men of Clemson and these young Tigers had an extraordinary year amidst extraordinarily difficult competition. I am told that they finished the season with a record of 128 wins, eight losses and three draws, or three ties, against opponents ranked in the top 25 teams in the country. So when they took on the very finest competition there was, they won 93 percent of the matches, which is really an astonishingly good record. I wish that I was right 93 percent of the time in the things that I do here in doing my job. We also want to commend the Oklahoma State University Cowboys who were in second place in the tournament. My understanding is that the tournament took place on their home course, and I think that adds special luster to the achievement of the young men from Clemson because when one is playing against competition that is used to playing on that course day in and day out, it is an advantage for the home team that the Clemson team was able to overcome. It is my understanding that each of the Tigers players who participated in the NCAA championship are native-born South Carolinians. That must be a source of great pride for the schools and the coaches and families of the State of South Carolina for which we congratulate those schools and coaches and families. Finally, it is my understanding that players D.J. Trahan, Jack Ferguson, and Matt Hendrix were all honored as All-Americans in the 2002-2003 season. To have three All-Americans on one team in any sport is quite an achievement; and I know that Head Coach Larry Penley, who himself was honored as the Golf Coaches Association of America's Dave Williams Award winner as Coach of the Year, should be justifiably proud. This morning, as we speak, there are young Americans who are in science labs and lecture halls and technology centers and study areas, all in campuses all around our country, and we commend them for that; but we also recognize that one of the most important places to learn about life and about the principles of life is on the field of battle and athletic competitions. It is obvious Clemson University should be very proud of these young men. I also add one thing parenthetically now to inject a controversial topic for those of us, and I mean those of us on both sides of the aisle who so strongly support title IX and support equal athletic opportunities for young men and women. This is one example of how we do not have to choose between broader opportunities for all athletes and broader opportunities for some. One of the concerns about title IX is that nonrevenue-producing sports on the men's side, like golf, which really does not produce revenue, would be jeopardized if we have a strong and robust title IX. Well, we have a strong and robust title IX. We are pleased we are going to keep this, and I think this is one more example of how we can have men and women excel in the field of athletic competition. So I congratulate Clemson University, and all of their alumni and students and followers must be very, very proud of these young men who have won such an esteemed championship. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

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