Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that very much. We like to keep the smart ones in the State, but we let a few of them go to South Carolina.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman, and the ranking member as well, for their gracious cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the House conferees on this bill work to include language in the conference report that addresses concerns I have about a Superfund site in my district, the Gloucester Environmental Management Services, or GEMS, landfill. Specifically, I request that report language direct the Inspector General of the EPA to conduct an investigation into all financial transactions, including revenue and spending, by the GEMS Trust, a collection of responsible parties who are required to conduct the remediation of this highly polluted landfill. I am concerned about how the trust has financed its actions so far and have reason to believe that the trust has not seriously considered all viable remediation options. Mr. Chairman, 38,000 of my constituents live within a 3-mile radius of this landfill, some as close as 300 feet. We owe it to them to choose the safest and most environmentally sound remediation method, not simply the cheapest. The responsible parties should not get away with a Band-Aid solution to a major environmental hazard. I seek this Inspector General investigation because I fear that the EPA may be endorsing a treatment method that does not sufficiently protect the health of my community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 29th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus, which occurred on July 20, 1974. It is my firm hope that these Turkish occupying forces, which are still stationed in the northern third of the island, will soon be withdrawn, thus allowing Greek and Turkish Cypriot compatriots to live in peace and unity in the absence of this needless military presence. For the past 29 years, Cyprus has been a nation divided. Despite the strong desires of Greek Cypriots to return to the homes that they have been barred from since the initial invasion, and the expressed desires of an overwhelming majority of Turkish Cypriots to reunify the island so that all Cypriots can enjoy the benefits of EU membership, the Republic of Cyprus remains torn. There have been recent advancements, such as the signing of the EU Accession Treaty, the partial opening of the Green Line, and the package of measures that was designed and implemented by the Greek Cypriots with the intention of assisting their Turkish-Cypriot neighbors, but none of this has led to the ultimate goal, which is the peaceful reunification of the island. The United Nations, under the leadership of Secretary General Kofi Annan, made a sincere effort at encouraging negotiations between the two sides prior to the signing of the EU Accession Treaty, but the obdurate leader of the Turkish-Cypriots, Rauf Denktash, failed to cooperate. Thus, the division remains. The failure to reunify the island is certainly not due to a lack of interest shown by the people of Cyprus. Compelled by desires to return to the lands they have been evicted from since the Turkish invasion of 1974, Greek-Cypriots continue to support efforts to reach a settlement through negotiations. Likewise, Turkish-Cypriots have come out in great numbers to demonstrate against their leader's negative approach in hopes of someday reuniting their country and gaining all of the benefits that come with EU membership. Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is vitally important for the United States government to continue its strong support and encouragement of the Cypriot community as they continue their push towards reunification. I recently introduced a resolution into the House, H. Res. 320, which calls for the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish troops of occupation from the Republic of Cyprus. Given the recent advancements that have been made, I feel that the removal of occupational forces would be an appropriate and meaningful step to continue the momentum towards reunification of the island. With over 30,000 troops currently stationed in Cyprus, the island is one of the most militarized countries in the world, and this is clearly not conducive to peaceful negotiations. I strongly urge each of my colleagues in the House to join me in support of this positive step, and to cosponsor this resolution. It has been 29 long years since the Republic of Cyprus was first divided by the illegal occupation of Turkish military forces. For 29 years Greek-Cypriots have been barred from the northern portion of their homeland, and Turkish-Cypriots have lived through economic hardships under an illegitimate government. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the time has come for the Republic of Cyprus to be reunified, and I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in support of all efforts towards this end.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we support Head Start, and we support constructive changes to Head Start. We must oppose this bill because of two very destructive changes. The majority says there are 600,000 children eligible for Head Start who, today, do not get Head Start. They do change that. They increase the number of children eligible who will not get funded. About 10,000 more children by the end of this bill who are eligible for Head Start will not be. The second change is even more odious. There is an understanding in this country that if a church or religious organization runs a preschool program and someone who is not a member of that religious organization comes and applies for a teaching job to teach mathematics or reading or other skills that under present law they cannot deny that person a job because they do not go to their church or their religious organization. This bill changes that law. It violates that principle. It is wrong. It is divisive. It is destructive. It is unconstitutional. There are a lot of good reasons to oppose this bill; but ripping us asunder, giving employers the right not to hire people because of where they worship is just plain wrong, and so is this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much for his leadership and his work on this issue; and I know how good his word is, and I appreciate that. I also thank the ranking member for her leadership.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could engage the chairman of the subcommittee on the firearm issue. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who are co- chairs of the Hellenic Caucus, for their leadership and interest in this issue and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for their interest. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that the House conferees on the foreign operations appropriations work to include language in the conference report regarding the recent article 98 agreement between the United States and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As my colleagues may be aware, the Former Yugoslav Republic was allowed to sign this agreement as Macedonia, which directly violates United States policy regarding use of that nomenclature. Currently, FYROM and Greece are involved in negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations regarding usage of the name ``Macedonia,'' and the United States has said it will recognize FYROM only as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia while these negotiations are ongoing. Despite this, the State Department allowed FYROM to sign the article 98 agreement as Macedonia, thus showing utter disregard for our Greek allies. While I certainly understand that this important agreement which ensures that Americans will not be brought before the International Criminal Court by FYROM is designed to protect American citizens and members of the U.S. Armed Forces, I find it inexcusable that we obtained the signature of FYROM at the expense of our friends in Greece. It is my view that the name ``Macedonia'' properly belongs to Greek culture and, therefore, should not be used by any other country. Greek Macedonia is one of the oldest civilizations known to man, and the history of this name should be recognized and respected. Mr. Chairman, I ask that language be included in the conference report on foreign operations which states that the State Department should not have allowed the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to sign the article 98 agreement as Macedonia. Further, this language should affirm that it is the United States policy for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be referred to only as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and this policy should be observed in all future relations between the United States and FYROM. In this manner, we can ensure that the culture of our Greek allies is never disrespected in this way again.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the recent passage of my amendment regarding the security of Taiwan, which was part of the en bloc amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The passage of this amendment shows strong Congressional support for the safety and welfare of the citizens of Taiwan, and sends a message to the People's Republic of China that the use of force, and even the threat of the use of force, against Taiwan will not be tolerated. In the past two decades, Taiwan has undergone a remarkable transformation from a one party, martial law dictatorship to a full- fledged democracy that respects human rights and human freedoms. However, Taiwan's democracy faces a serious military threat from the People's Republic of China. The PRC regards Taiwan as a renegade province, despite the fact that it has never exercised control over the island. They continue to openly entertain the use of force against Taiwan, thereby jeopardizing the stability of the entire Asian Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, as one of the leading democracies in the world, it is the duty of the American government to protect Taiwan from the PRC's threats to its democratic system of governance. Through this amendment, the United States Congress is expressing its grave concern regarding the People's Republic of China's deployment of hundreds of ballistic missiles directed towards Taiwan. The provision calls upon the President of the United States to direct all appropriate U.S. officials to raise these concerns with PRC officials, and to seek renunciation from the leaders of the PRC of any threat or use of force against Taiwan. In addition, it calls upon the President of the United States to authorize the sale of the Aegis missile defense system to Taiwan if China refuses to dismantle the missiles in question. Finally, the provision reaffirms that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully, and with the expressed consent of the Taiwanese people, I wish to thank my colleagues in the House for their expressed support of this most important provision. Only by defending the democracies that currently exist throughout the world can we actively promote the spread of democratic ideals. I would ask that my colleagues continue to keep a watchful eye on the PRC's treatment of Taiwan, and remain vigilant in their support for the Taiwanese people and their quest for safety, security, and freedom.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to the time limitation in the interest in getting all the Members home today. I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their support of this amendment. I want to talk about why we are here and why I would urge Members to support the amendment. This is a project about deepening the Delaware River from its present 40-foot depth to a 45-foot depth. There has been intense controversy about this issue for a very long time. In June 2002, the General Accounting Office at the request of Members of this House and the other body released a study of this project which concluded that contrary to the legal requirement that there be at least a dollar of benefit for every dollar invested, that, in fact, in this project there are only 49 cents of value for every dollar that is invested. The GAO described the project as unsustainable under the rules that govern the Army Corps of Engineers. Late in 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers recalculated its assessment of the project and not surprisingly concluded that the benefits did outweigh the costs. We have looked very carefully at that reassessment and commissioned an independent study by Dr. Sterns, who is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works of the Army, and his conclusion I will read as follows: ``Considering that the Army Corps has already spent more than $20 million studying this project and yet many serious concerns remain, it is unlikely that any new deepening project for the Delaware River of similar scope can ever be justified. We recommend that Congress deauthorize the Main Channel Deepening Project for the Delaware River rather than wasting any more taxpayer funds to study an inherently flawed proposal.'' Responding to that conclusion, the administration in its budget request asked for $300,000 for this project, $300,000. The committee has increased that amount to $8 million. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce that appropriation from the $8 million submitted by the committee to the $300,000 requested by the administration. There are four reasons why Members should support this amendment. The first is it is a waste of money. As the GAO concluded, for every dollar that our constituents put into this project, we can expect only 50 cents' worth of return. The second reason that Members should support this amendment is that it is wholly consistent with the very desirable goal of protecting jobs in the ports and, in fact, growing jobs at the ports. In our region there is strong disagreement about the merits of this project, but there is unanimity over the goal of expanding port development. With the 40-foot channel, the port that is affected by this amendment has experienced considerable growth in the last 10 years. For example, since 1990 container traffic at the port of Philadelphia and Camden has tripled with the 40-foot channel. It is estimated that the main source of growth in global container trade will be the Panamax class ships. That trade is expected to triple by the year 2010. Panamax class ships as a rule require less than a 40-foot draft. So dredging this channel to 45 feet is not necessary for growth of the port, and there is strong feeling throughout the region that we can grow without that. Third reason are environmental concerns. The Delaware Environmental Department and the New Jersey Environmental Department have not issued the permits that are necessary for this project to go forward. There are substantial reasons for this. There are questions about the stirring up of generations of chemicals and potential toxins that lie in the river. There are questions about lack of compliance with the Clean Air Act. There are questions about the effect of this project on the salt line's progress north in the River and its effect on various plant, aquatic, and obviously human life. Environmentally this project is flawed. This is the reason why American rivers, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group support this amendment. Fourth, and another important reason, is the lack of local support for this amendment. We are being asked over the course of this project to commit well in excess of $200 million from the Federal Treasury. There is a requirement that well in excess of $100 million of local match be generated from local sources. In this project the local source is a port authority called the Delaware River Port Authority. The Delaware River Port Authority is governed in such a way that there must be agreement from the New Jersey commissioners on the one side of the River and the Pennsylvania commissioners on the other side of the river. There must be a majority of both sides before a decision can be made. I will be entering into the Record at an appropriate time a letter from the vice chairman of the Port Authority, the leader of the New Jersey delegation to the Port Authority, which includes the following language: ``I will not support the Delaware River Deepening Project as currently proposed. I intend to urge the New Jersey delegation to reject any disbursement of Delaware River Port Authority funds for this project as currently proposed. I believe that the project will pose a serious environmental risk to the communities in South Jersey. Further, critical questions relating to the economic benefit of this project remain unanswered.'' It is signed by Jeffrey Nash, who is the vice chairman of the Delaware Port Authority. So, Mr. Chairman, there are four good reasons to vote yes on this amendment. First of all, the project is a waste of money. Read the GAO report. Second, it is not necessary to serve the very viable and broadly held goal of developing jobs at the port. Third, there are serious environmental questions, which is why groups like the League of Conservation Voters support the amendment. And, finally, the local match that is required to make this project go is in serious jeopardy because the New Jersey commissioners who would be required to support the local match have just gone on record as saying they will not. Delaware River Port Authority, Camden, NJ, July 17, 2003. Hon. Robert Andrews, U.S. Congress, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. [Re: Delaware River Deepening Project] Dear Congressman Andrews: As the Vice Chairman of the Delaware River Port Authority, heading the New Jersey State Delegation to that Authority, I write to inform you that I will not support the Delaware River Deepening Project as currently proposed. I intend to urge the New Jersey Delegation to reject any disbursement of Delaware River Port Authority funds for this project as currently proposed. I believe that the project will pose a serious environmental risk to the communities in South Jersey. Further, critical questions relating to the economic benefit of this project remain unanswered. As you have reported, we have a particular concern over the disparate burden placed upon South Jersey by the Army Corp of Engineers given their plan to dispose the majority of potentially toxic spoils on unidentified sites. In addition to our environmental and economic concerns, we vigorously object to this dredge disposal plan and, therefore, cannot offer our support for this project. I understand that the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives intends to appropriate 8 million dollars toward this project despite President Bush's request to essentially eliminate its funding. I also recognize that any federal funding for this project is contingent upon a propositional match by local governmental entities. I am writing to notify you and fellow members of Congress that Delaware River Port Authority funding is seriously in doubt given New Jersey's concern as set forth herein. Our goal is to pursue a Port Development Plan that accentuates our assets: location, a superior work force, and excellent intermodal facilities. We are confident that we will protect the many jobs based at the port and add considerably to the economic engine without the environmental risk of the proposed dredging project. The Delaware River Port Authority is committed to improve the South Jersey and Philadelphia region by engaging in economic development projects that hope to benefit the region by creating new jobs, improving the quality of life of the region, and revitalizing the local economy. Based upon several studies including a report by the General Accounting Office, I have concluded that this project does not meet with our mission. I have based my determination on the fact that this project poses significant environmental risk as well as numerous quality of life issues to the community in our region. We look forward to working with our colleagues at the Delaware River Port Authority, and in the port communities of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, to develop a viable Port Development Plan. Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Nash, Vice Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 10 minutes on the amendment with the permission to yield.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. We have great respect for our friends, but we have great respect for the facts. The fact is that GAO had the last word. They say the project is a waste of money. The fact is the environmental agencies of New Jersey and Delaware have not permitted this. The fact is with respect to the local match, the New Jersey people will not put up the match. The project should not be funded. We respectfully ask everyone to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) on the issue of termination for convenience. We think it is a very important clarification that if there is a termination by the government for reasons of convenience, the companies involved in the project can recover their costs under the normal rules for that. I know that the gentleman's committee was involved in making that possible, and I wanted to thank him for his cooperation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's cooperation in that regard. Second, I would like to say it is very important that the chairman has very skillfully, along with the ranking member, assured that there will be continuing oversight by the Congress of the activities under this bill. We had to strike the proper balance here between a guaranteed funding stream so that the companies involved in this would know that their investment would in fact be recovered, but at the same time not yielding the important oversight function that this Congress should exercise. And I commend the chairman and the ranking member and all the authors for making that the case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has had experience in State government with homeland security, who has had experience here on the Committee on Armed Services and now on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and that he may further allocate that time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the point the gentleman is making. The BioShield Project is built on a foundation of accurate assessment of the threats that we face. For example, if there is an assessment that we face a significant threat from botulism, the full resources of this bill are applied to finding an antidote to botulism. The gentleman's point is very well taken. If the threat assessment is flawed, then we run the risk of either spending money on a threat that is not very viable, or failing to spend energy and money on a threat that is viable that we have failed to detect. So we can employ the very best resources of our scientists, our engineers, our researchers, our entrepreneurs, but have them working on the wrong problem if there is not an adequate intelligence-gathering capability and then an adequate response to that intelligence-gathering capability shared with the Department of Homeland Security. I think the gentleman's point is very well taken.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Slaughter amendment. I appreciate the gentlewoman offering this bipartisan amendment. One of the highlights for me of the last school year was watching my 10-year-old daughter, Jackie, who took flute lessons for the first time, excel in a school musical. At this hour as we speak, my 8-year-old daughter, Josie, is in a rehearsal for her role in community theater for ``Man of La Mancha.'' The arts are an important part of our family, and we are a privileged family to have that involvement. But without the NEA and the NEH, there are many families in many corners of America who never experience the delight of the arts. The NEA and the NEH are about the democratization of arts in our country. Now, I have heard four arguments against amendments like that of my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). The first is it is too expensive to fund the NEA and the NEH. That is incorrect. The economic loss of withdrawal of support for the arts would be far greater than the modest cost of this amendment. Jobs that are created in tourism, in the hospitality industry, and directly through the arts themselves generate tax revenues that more than offset the very modest costs of this amendment. The second argument I have heard against the arts is sometimes the NEA or NEH funds a particular work of art that some Members here do not like. Let me say for the record, I hope the NEA and NEH always fund arts that some politicians find objectionable. That is the nature of the artistic process. The power of the NEA and the NEH is its peer- driven mechanism, where decisions are made by people in the arts in consultation with their peers and not through the political process. May it always be that way. I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for maintaining that tradition. The third argument that I hear is that this is an elitist segment of the Federal budget, that by funding the arts we are somehow propagating an elitism. The exact opposite is true. There are so many people in urban and rural low-income areas around our country who would never get the chance to experience the delight of a piece of theater by Shakespeare, the grace of a ballet, the innate beauty of a painting or sculpture were it not for the extension of the arts that was provided by NEA and NEH. In my district at Camden, New Jersey, at the Leap Charter School this summer there is a program in the arts in Greek mythology and Greek drama for children, most of whom come from the very lowest echelon on the economic ladder. But they are experiencing the arts in a positive and creative way for the very first time. Finally, we hear the argument that the amount of money is so modest that it really does not do arts organizations much good and that because there is so much money flowing into the coffers of arts organizations, they do not really need the money. Mr. Chairman, anybody who makes that argument has never been involved in a nonprofit arts organization. They have never known that that extra $10,000 or that extra $15,000 is make or break. It is the seed money that lets the organization get started so it can generate ticket revenues, so it can generate corporate and charitable contributions. It is the seed money that gives rise to the possibility of all the other revenues. In a country that spends over $2 trillion for its governance, this is frankly an embarrassingly modest commitment to the arts and humanities. It is wise. It is just, and it is one that should enjoy the bipartisan support of this House. I urge the adoption of the amendment.