Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that I am privileged to cosponsor. I want to speak for a moment about the appropriateness of the offsets that have been chosen in this amendment. The first is the elimination of funding for MIGA. We have heard some persuasive arguments from the chairman of the subcommittee about the good work that MIGA does in the more desperately poor parts of the world. I agree they do some work, but I think that it is overstated to say they do much. The top five countries to receive assistance from MIGA in fiscal year 2000 were Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Russia and Turkey. None of these five countries is eligible for funds under the International Development Agency program that provides for loans to the poorest countries in the world. MIGA is not providing economic development in the poorest sections of the world. There are other programs that do so. I think that this offset is appropriate. Second, with respect to the Asian Development Fund, it is my understanding that the increase in this bill is $30 million. This amendment reduces the increase by one-third. There is still a $20 million increase in that fund as a result of this amendment. There are many problems brought to this floor that we cannot do very much about. This is one where there is a solution within our reach. Tuberculosis has a cure. Three out of four people in the poorest parts of the world do not have access to that cure. We can do something about that by adding $20 million to the fund under this bill. We have a smart way to do it. It is a compassionate thing to do. I would urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. For years, the policy of this country has been that when we find schools that are filled with students who are underachieving, we do not do anything about it. Year after year, wasted generation after wasted generation, we just keep sending more money and doing the same old failed thing. This bill promises to change that. How do we change it? We build schools where every child is in school well nourished, in a safe, clean classroom, being taught by a qualified, enthused teacher in front of a class that is a manageable size, with access to the right technology, with programs for significant parental involvement, for prekindergarten, for after school, for all of the things that we know work. But we also know this: All of those things that work cost money. The bill that I was proud to support that we are sending to this conference has a significant increase in the Federal investment in education. But that is only a target as it now stands. One of the goals of our conferees should be to work with the other body and make sure that that promise of greater investment in struggling schools becomes a reality. It is not just about investment, it is about prekindergarten. It is about teacher training, smaller classes, safer schools, school breakfasts, parental involvement programs, and all the things that make a school work right. We have laid the foundation to get that done. I hope that in the weeks and months ahead, the conferees will finish the job and bring back to this House a product that honors the promise of real change where it is most needed in American education.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the Repaupo Creek watershed in my district in New Jersey is in urgent need of a replacement tide gate and dike restoration project. The project is needed for several reasons, the most important of which is to provide flood protection for the residents of Logan and Greenwich Townships in Gloucester County. The Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service has the authority to undertake projects on watersheds that are smaller than 250,000 acres. This project meets that requirement. Although the Repaupo Creek is a small watershed, the tide gate sits on the Delaware River, and there is some question whether a waiver will be required to do this project. Given the urgent need for this work to be completed, and given that New Jersey officials of the Department of Agriculture have expressed a desire and willingness to work on this project, I ask the chairman on behalf of the subcommittee to agree that there is jurisdiction under present law for USDA to do the work repairing the Repaupo tide gate.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the subcommittee chairman, in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that a study be conducted on pier safety in navigable waters. Currently, no Federal regulations exist requiring safety standards for piers. This deeply concerns me because there have been a great number of fatal pier accidents that could have been prevented if Federal safety standards were in place. One such fatal accident took place on May 18, 2000, when a 140-foot portion of Pier 34 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia collapsed, killing three constituents of mine. This accident could have been avoided if Federal pier safety standards had existed. I believe that Congress can take an active role in preventing these tragic accidents from occurring by creating safety standards for piers in navigable waters. Therefore, I respectfully ask for the chairman to support my efforts by urging the conferees to include language in the final transportation appropriations bill that calls for a study to be conducted on pier safety. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is twofold. It is to strongly support the continued operation of Amtrak as a national passenger railroad system, and it is to save the taxpayers of our country $335,000. This amendment strikes the amount of $335,000 from the amount appropriated for the operations of the so-called Amtrak Reform Council. I believe there are two good arguments for this. The first is that the remaining fund for the Amtrak Reform Council, which is $450,000, are more than sufficient for the council to carry on its work. When the council was first created in 1997, it was projected by the Congressional Budget Office that its annual cost of operation would be approximately $500,000. This amendment would bring the cost of operating the council back to that general level. The second reason for this is that the Amtrak Reform Council, in my judgment, has been less about reform and more about criticism of Amtrak. The place where Amtrak's future should be decided, with all due respect, is in the authorizing committee and on the floor of this House and we can have a good debate about the future of the railroad. I do not believe that ceding our judgment to an unelected body of people, many of whom have expressed strong prejudices against the operation of Amtrak, is a wise course. Mr. Chairman, in each of the last two Congresses, the House has approved a similar amendment, by a roll call vote in 1999 and by voice in the year 2000. I believe this is a reasonable balance. It permits the work of the Amtrak Reform Council to go on, despite the fact that many of us disagree with that work, while at the same time requiring the council to rely on the good offices already existing in the Department of Transportation, not expanding spending to outside consultants and other expenditures, which I believe the taxpayers should not be burdened with. The amount of the cut is $335,000. I would point out that I believe this is an amendment which supports Amtrak. In turn it is supported by the transportation trades department of the AFL-CIO speaking for the men and women who are Amtrak employees. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have an amendment that comes in at page 52 and I wonder what effect that will have on the gentleman's request. I do not intend to object other than to preserve the right to offer my amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman and the staff.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lola Quesenberry as she celebrates 19 years of service with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through the Earth Team volunteer program. Lola has logged over 18,000 hours of service since she began volunteering in Blythe, California where she worked with the Palo Verde Resource Conservation District. While in California, Lola assisted with the development of an intensive agricultural irrigation water management program. Her primary role was to operate a Campbell Pacific Nuclear neutron probe, which is an accurate method of monitoring soil moisture, at over 200 sites. Lola also assisted with the evaluation of over 50 irrigation systems, helping the farmers to optimize their water use and thereby conserve our precious water resources. She was also involved with the development of the McCoy Wash PL566 Small Watershed project--a project that is currently under construction. Upon moving to New Jersey in 1987 to help care for her invalid mother-in-law, Lola continued her Earth Team involvement by volunteering for the South Jersey Resource Conservation, and Development Council. Lola's major responsibility is assisting with the development of the Resource Information Serving Everyone (R.I.S.E.) program. This fully functional program includes operation of eighteen Campbell Scientific weather stations located in seven southern New Jersey counties and four Campbell Scientific water quality stations. R.I.S.E. features a comprehensive Internet web site to disseminate irrigation scheduling to farmers, homeowners, and facilities managers, while also providing environmental education to interested organizations and schoolchildren. Lola actively participates in numerous watershed projects in New Jersey. She attends meetings and provides a unique perspective to the NRCS-led Millstone watershed project, the proposed Repaupo Creek watershed project, and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission's two projects--Crosswicks WMA20 and the Lower Delaware Tributaries WMA 18. Lola has volunteered time to assist the Bear Creek Conservancy/ Stewardship Association with the creation and maintenance of a fresh water marsh for waterfowl habitat. She also volunteers to the South Jersey Chapter of Quail Unlimited to help create upland wildlife habitat. For over 19 years, Lola Quesenberry's volunteer spirit, together with the synergy gained from working with other Earth Team members and resource conservation professionals, has helped to conserve resources and improve the environment in California and New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton amendment. The underlying bill begins to address the hole that was blown in the side of the U.S.S. Cole. The Skelton amendment begins to address the hole that has been blown into the spare parts, the ammunition, the basic-training material that we need for our men and women. It begins to address the hole that has been blown and the promise of decent housing and decent education we have made to their families. But we cannot address the Skelton amendment because of the hole that has been blown in the budget by the tax cut that this House approved just a few weeks ago. It is the wrong national priority. The right national priority would be to pass the Skelton amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), in the salute to organized labor in our country. The enduring value of organized labor's contribution is best measured by what labor has done for those who are not members of labor unions. Labor unions have done much for their members: Higher wages, broader and more valuable benefits, safer and more fair working conditions. It is the collective lifting of all workers and all industries and all persons across the country that has been the lasting legacy of organized labor. With that in mind, I think it is important that we examine what labor has achieved, how our lives would be different if labor had not been organized; what we must do in this Congress to continue the strong tradition of collectively bargaining in America, and then to consider the issues that affect each of us that labor is taking a lead in fighting and working for. Members of the generation that has been described as America's greatest generation were born in a very different world than the one in which we live today. A person 75 years of age today was born in 1926. In 1926, when they stopped working they stopped having an income unless they were someone very affluent and very privileged. Most people worked until the day that they died. Then labor helped to take the lead in enacting the Social Security legislation in the mid-1930s. If one was born in 1926, they lived in a world where the day they stopped working, they stopped getting any kind of health care coverage or access to medical services if they had it at all before then. The mid-1960s again was in the vanguard as Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Medicare legislation, which has assured generations of Americans, labor union families and nonlabor union families, the security of first class health care from the day they retire until the day that they die. If one was born in 1926, they lived in a world where it was legal to require someone to work more than 40 hours a week without paying them overtime. It was legal to press into service children. It was legal to send them to work for long hours in dark places that were unfit for human work or human habitation. Labor was in the vanguard of changing that as well. The strides that labor has made are based upon the ability to bargain collectively, and it is this right of collective bargaining that needs protection and support in the Congress of the United States. There are two actions that I think are important for us to consider. One we should take and one we should not take. We should, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), has suggested and others have suggested, enact legislation that says to an employer that when the employer in bad faith refuses to bargain collectively with a duly recognized collective bargaining union, that that employer should be held responsible for the consequential damages and attorney's fees which flow from such a failure to bargain in good faith. The way it works today is that when a union fights and wins a representation election and an employer chooses to keep on fighting rather than to start bargaining, that lost wages and lost value of benefits and expenses incurred as a result of continuing to litigate and to fight are not recoverable by the workers who won that representation election. It is a unique anomaly in American law. In virtually every other area of contract law in America, if one has a contract and it is breached by the other side, they are made whole for the consequences of that breach. That is not true in collective bargaining legislation and it ought to be. That is the aim of legislation that I have introduced in the House of Representatives in this Congress.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, opposition to this amendment is not based upon an expression of guilt, it is based upon an exercise of common sense. I do not think that any violent student should spend one more hour in any classroom in this country. Under the existing law and under this bill, they need not. This bill says if a student engages in an act of violence and present law says if a student engages in an act of violence, they can be removed from the classroom. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us says after they are removed from the classroom, that is the end of their education. That is it if the State so chooses. I oppose this amendment because it does not answer this question: With respect to this violent student, once they are removed from the classroom, as they should be, what happens next? This amendment does not deal with the very real problem of violence in our schools. It just moves it from our schools to somewhere else, to our streets or to our neighborhoods or to other social institutions. I for one minute would not stand for the proposition that we should coddle or discriminate in favor of people who commit violent crimes. But I know this: That pretending that they are just going to go away will not work. Pretending that they will disappear from the rest of the community will not work. And understanding if we get people that are prone to violence back on a positive track by offering them an education, they are a lot less likely to commit another violent offense. Mr. Chairman, it is very alluring to say we should just pull the plug on the education of those that commit violence. It is also completely counterproductive. It is a guarantee that many of those same young men and women will never get an education, never become contributing members of society, and will commit even more heinous and terrible crimes. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my friend, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The amendment makes a modest quantitative change but a significant and negative qualitative change. First of all, we ought to remind ourselves that States and localities can do whatever they see fit with 100 percent of their State and local money, 100 percent. This is about the very small amount of money that comes to local school districts from the Federal budget. We are in the process of collectively making a judgment about some spending priorities that help children. We believe it helps children to encourage school districts to spend money on the latest technology so there are computers in classrooms. We believe it helps children to bring police officers and teachers together to teach children the evils and dangers of drugs and alcohol under the safe and drug free schools section. We believe it helps children to afford teachers the opportunity to retool and relearn their craft on a regular basis, and we believe it helps children to find some extra money for the unusual and innovative ideas that usually do not find its way into the regular school budget. We believe that each one of those things ought to be done with at least 50 percent, at least 50 percent of the very modest amount of Federal money that is being sent to local school districts. If you reduce that 50 percent to 25 percent, I believe you reduce these priorities to the point of dilution. You reduce them to the point where nothing really gets done in these four important areas at all. Mr. Chairman, I fully embrace and support the right of local school districts to spend their own money, raised through their own taxing authorities completely as they see fit, subject to the laws and constitutional provisions that they must live under, but I think that when we make a national judgment about the importance of technology, of teacher training, of safe and drug free schools and of innovative strategies, we ought to stick to it. This amendment does not do that. It should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very special day in the House of Representatives when those who support this amendment are overwhelmed with compassion for the parents of low-income children. That is not the case when we bring a tax bill to the floor and they refuse to make their tax credit refundable so low-income families can have it. That is not the case on a normal day on this floor, when no legislation to provide health insurance to the 44 million uninsured people of America is brought to this floor. That compassion is sorely lacking when there has been a commitment by the majority not to move a bill to raise the minimum wage of many of those parents that we are talking about today. This is a very special day when compassion for those families seems to come to the forefront. A year-long, a life-long commitment to that compassion would defeat this amendment and pass legislation that would provide health care and housing and jobs and real opportunity for those families we hear about from the proponents of the amendment. Defeat this amendment for real compassion.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it provides a disingenuous solution to an indisputable problem. It is indisputable that there are many children attending subpar schools throughout this country, but I want Members to think about the solution this amendment proposes. It says that children who go to a school where most of the kids fail a test year after year after year can eventually leave that school and take a bit of money with them and then attend a private school where the same testing will not be imposed. Now, this amendment says there will be comparable tests, but not the same one. See, it is okay to justify people leaving a public school with public money to go to a private school because they could not perform on a standardized test, but then the amendment says that we will not give that same standardized test once the child gets to the private school. It only has to be comparable. This amendment is an invitation to school fraud, not school choice. It will create a marketplace of fly-by-night institutions posing as legitimate schools simply to sop up this new Federal voucher that will be out there. It will degrade the well-earned reputation of legitimate private schools sponsored by religious and other organizations around the country. The real solution is what is in the underlying bill: evaluate schools, find out what they are doing wrong, improve what they are doing wrong, and ultimately, replace the managers who will not make the changes that will make the schools better. I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There is a basic agreement in this bill that would be completely rejected and violated if this amendment were enacted. And the agreement is this: many of us who frankly have some misgivings about annual testing held together yesterday and with a bipartisan majority rejected an amendment that would have removed annual testing from this bill. Here is what the annual testing will tell us: schools that are overcrowded, that have minimal parental involvement, that have teachers teaching out of field, in dilapidated facilities, that are not safe, will have low test scores. That is what the annual testing is going to tell us. What we also know is that fixing that problem will require better teachers teaching in field to smaller classes with better technology in more modern, safer facilities, with greater parental involvement, with breakfast programs, with after-school programs, with tutoring and summer school, and all of the other elements that make a school successful. That costs money. If we do not follow up on the other part of this agreement and provide for the doubling of title I funding that is authorized by this bill, then this bill is nothing but a cruel hoax on the lagging schools and the struggling students of this country. The amendment does a public service, I must say. It points out the difference between the rhetoric of the administration and the reality of the budget resolution approved by this House and by the other body. Perhaps by the rules we are bound by that resolution, but by our commitment to better education and by our commitment to the principles that underlie this bill we are not. We should reject this amendment and adhere to this deal.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to what is clearly a well-intended amendment that I believe will create significant confusion. No one can dispute the need or desirability of reinforcing the notion of teachers and other school professionals that they need to maintain order in the classroom. I think the gentleman's point that there are some frivolous lawsuits is indisputable. My concern about this amendment is that I think it fundamentally misunderstands the role of the courts versus the role of this Congress. This amendment would impose a hard and fast and rigid set of rules upon virtually every classroom situation, and do so in a way that could not foresee certain circumstances. As a result of this, I believe it would actually breed litigation. Let me give two examples. I do not believe it is inherently obvious from this language as to whether or not an act of slander or libel by a teacher or by a school professional is or is not actionable under this provision. Secondly, the definition of ``school'' or ``within the scope of employment'' is a bit curious. What about a driver's education instructor who is behind the wheel of a car and negligently operates the car in the process of teaching a student how to drive? I do not know what the answer to those cases should be, but I do know this, that this House as a legislative body is ill-equipped and ill- prepared to answer one of those questions on a case-by-case basis in advance of the incident's taking place. I think the gentleman's intention to protect the ordinary carrying- out of school disciplinary measures is quite laudable and quite desirable, but I think the ambiguity of language in suggesting which causes of action would be preempted or excluded by this amendment and which would not, and the ambiguity of language in suggesting what the ``scope of employment'' means, means that this very well-intentioned attempt to avoid litigation would in fact wind up creating it. In summary, I believe we should defeat this amendment because of those ambiguities.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this Congress, led by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), has come together to produce an agreement that I believe will make America's public schools better, and I am pleased to support it. This bill introduces a new principle into Federal education policy; and that is, as we increase resources to public schools, we also increase responsibility. We require schools that have not measured up to figure out how to measure up, and we make a promise that the resources will be provided to make that measurement happen. I am particularly pleased that, with the cooperation of the majority, we have made efforts in this bill to expand opportunities to use Federal resources for pre-kindergarten education. Under a provision of the manager's amendment, which I worked on with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), schools will be able to use monies under title IV of this bill to provide quality pre-kindergarten education. Also, under title I of this bill, the bill clarifies that, in whole school reform, pre-K monies may also be used. I also appreciate the fact that the majority worked with my efforts to provide funding for peer mediation programs so that school violence can be curtailed. We are going to work together to pass this bill, Republican and Democrat. We will work together and send it to the President's desk. I believe that schools and students all across the country will be better for it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is very important to understand what the bill does not provide in the area of testing. First of all, it does not provide for a national test. It provides for States to have the standards and the flexibility to determine in their judgment the best way to evaluate their students. Second of all, the bill does not provide for punitive results of poor performance on the test. Instead, the test is diagnostic in nature as designed by the States. It is designed to identify those schools and those children that have significant learning needs and difficulties and to empower educators with the tools and strategies necessary to address those deficiencies. I think the greatest risk of passing this amendment is it means it will never get to the day that so many people rhetorically agree that we need to get to. Federal investment in education must produce results. People agree with that. One cannot measure results unless one tests and evaluates, and most people agree with that. But they say not this test, not this time, and not this way. I fear that we will never get to the test, we will never get to the time, we will never get to the standard that people can agree is necessary to meet the rhetorical principle that we have set forth. This bill provides for state-guided testing. It provides for remediation, not punishment, for those who do not measure up. The bill deserves the support of both parties here in the House. I urge my colleagues to reject and defeat this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the bipartisan agreement to this bill and in respectful opposition to this amendment. I understand the rationale of those who support this amendment; that local school decision-makers more often than not make good decisions on behalf of their students, and I agree with that conclusion. But I believe that the flaw in this amendment is its misunderstanding of the historical reasons why we have separate Federal programs for educational needs. These programs are not borne out of a conclusion that Washington knows best. They are borne out of the historical reality that very often States and localities do not address, for a variety of reasons, particular local needs. Two of the areas in this proposal that are of particular concern are teacher quality and technology. Many of us have read the recent research studies which show that there will be an acute and severe teacher shortage in our country in the years to come. Certainly we do not have all the answers as to how to address that demand for teacher quality, but we do know that very often, teacher quality ranks toward the bottom of concerns of local school districts because of other political considerations that are understandable. If they want to get rid of varsity football, there will be 500 parents at a school board meeting; but if they want to get rid of sabbaticals or summer programs for the teachers, probably no one will show up. In the area of technology, a similar argument applies. If the school district decides it wants to get rid of the marching band or the drama club, dozens of parents will come out and understandably protest against such a decision; but if there is a decision to cut back on the software contract or a decision not to upgrade the computers in the learning resource center quite as quickly, we very often find no one cares. So I believe that the importance of defeating this amendment is the recognition of the historical reality that Federal programs here are to serve a discrete and necessary purpose that still compels and demands our support. For that reason, I would ask my colleagues to join with the bipartisan consensus of this bill and defeat the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the rule. The bipartisanship on our committee on this education bill taught us a lesson on how to get along and work in a bipartisan fashion. It is a lesson that the leadership of this House has not learned. Here is what is wrong with this rule: it is a delicate compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans. There are many Republicans who believe that block grants called Straight A's should be included, and they will have their chance to make that argument on this floor. There are many Republicans who believe that private school vouchers should be included, and they will have their chance to make their argument on this floor. But there are many Democrats who believe that an extension of the class size reduction program ought to be included, and we will not have our chance to make that argument on this floor. There are many of us who believe that a school construction program should be added, and we will not have our chance to make that argument on this floor. The lesson of bipartisanship that was taught by the committee has been ignored by the House majority leadership. Their rule should be rejected.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maloney and I rise today to recognize today as a national day of awareness for Sturge-Weber syndrome. We feel that it is important to recognize this day because Mrs. Karla Priepke, a native of Haddon Heights, New Jersey and resident of Sandy Hook Connecticut, brought her son's plight to our attention. Her son is affected by this disease and rather than turn inward she has made it her mission to inform and educate members of the society and especially the medical community about this disease. This is why we wish to do our small part to increase awareness of this disease by submitting this Sturge-Weber Foundation press release for the Congressional Record on this national day of awareness of Sturge-Weber Syndrome. Sturge-Weber Syndrome is a congenital disorder most easily recognized by a port wine stain on the face and/or body. No one is sure how or why it occurs. Babies born with Sturge-Weber can suffer from any or all of these complications: glaucoma, blindness, seizures that range from mild to the need to remove half the brain, mental retardation, and paralysis. The port wine stain often elicits rude stares and outrageously intrusive remarks from the public. The Sturge-Weber Foundation (www.sturge-weber.com) is establishing May 16, 2001 as the second national Day of Awareness for Sturge-Weber Syndrome. People will make a donation to the Foundation and wear a Sturge-Weber sticker on May 16th. They will receive a packet of information about the syndrome and the work of the Foundation so they can answer questions from colleagues and friends. The Sturge-Weber Foundation was created in 1987--the result of tenacious parents who refused to accept that all that was known about Sturge-Weber were three paragraphs in medical textbooks. Through Herculean volunteer efforts, the Foundation support group started. Their outstanding web site links families all over the United States and in many parts of the world. The Foundation seeks to improve the quality of life for individuals with Sturge-Weber Syndrome by acting as a clearinghouse for information, providing emotional support, and facilitating research. A minuscule 8 percent of funds taken in goes towards administration. The rest, including what's collected for the National Day of Awareness, goes directly to education, emotional support and research. The Foundation has attracted the attention and respect of a dozen teams of scientists who are tackling the question of how Sturge-Weber occurs from different angles Klippel-Trenaunay is a related syndrome in which port wine stains on limbs extend to muscle tissue and bone affecting circulation and mobility. Most children with port wine stains have neither Sturge-Weber Syndrome nor Klippel-Trenaunay. Of course, these can cause dermatological complications as the child matures. Sadly, the culture in the United States overemphasizes the importance of physical beauty which adds to the emotional burdens of children and adults with Port Wine Stains, Klippel-Trenaunay, and Sturge-Weber. The Foundation has made progress in research and is determined to press on to find out everything they can about this family of syndromes.