Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of the co-authors of this amendment and a person who has been very diligent about cutting costs for the American public.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a very articulate freshman Member.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, this House voted to end welfare as we know it for single moms and for people struggling to raise families across America. This amendment says that it is time for us to end corporate welfare as we know it. The amendment says that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, will be precluded from initiating new deals, new transactions, with the money that is in this underlying bill. It says that DuPont and General Electric, and McDonald's, and some of the largest corporations in the world, ought to risk their capital in risky international investments, not the capital of the American taxpayers. Now, I have had the opportunity to outline my views previously on Thursday night, but I want to quickly summarize them before yielding to supporters of my amendment. We will no doubt hear that this will cause chaos at OPIC. It will not. This amendment does not interfere with the ongoing operation and the wind-down of the entity. It simply says that funds should be used to effectuate that wind-down rather than to initiate new deals. We will hear that this will have a devastating effect on U.S. investment overseas. Frankly, the huge majority, the immense majority of private investments by U.S. corporations overseas have nothing to do with OPIC. They have to do with the judgments of entrepreneurs and investors in the global market every day. We will hear that somehow or another this is unilateral disarmament in the war on trade. It is nothing of the sort. It is the recognition that the real engine of international growth for the U.S. economy is not the taxpayers' pockets, but the entrepreneurs taking a risk. This is one of the few amendments I have ever seen that is supported by Ralph Nader and Milton Freedman. And that is probably all people need to know about why they should support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), one of the coauthors of the amendment with a leading voice for progressive issues in America.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 25th anniversary of a bitter day in world history, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Turkey's occupation of Cyprus now stands as the most lengthy and glaring example of contempt for the rule of law in the world today. The lack of enforcement of the scores of United Nations resolutions calling for the withdrawal of Turkey's illegal occupation forces remains a mark of unfulfilled responsibility in the global community. Cyprus presents an exceptional opportunity for the United States to facilitate a successful solution because a settlement there is manageable. Cyprus is small in size and population, and it has clearly delineated borders as an island nation. Many United Nations and United States Congressional resolutions have been passed over the years expressing the international community's and the United States' commitment to the removal of Turkish forces and return of Cypriot sovereignty. Failure to secure a Cyprus solution undermines international law, flouts the UN mission, contravenes stated U.S. foreign policy, and is in conflict with the world community's interest in deterring aggressor states. If the international community fails to create a just solution to this conflict, we will be implicitly accepting a defeatist premise: that ethnic conflicts are unsolvable and that their use as a pretext for international aggression is acceptable. I reject this doctrine. Events over the past decade in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, and in the Balkans, have proven that the international community can and should negotiate and work for peace, to put an end to ethnic violence and aggression. My strong belief in the urgency of this cause has resulted in my work to eliminate all U.S. aid to Turkey and my cosponsorship of many resolutions urging an end to this abhorrent conflict and injustice. I have also asked President Clinton to become personally involved in the peace negotiations, which are so critical to the resolution in Cyprus. The Clinton Administration has an opportunity in Cyprus to extend its reputation for supporting the international rule of law and brokering peace in conflict-ridden areas. I will continue to urge this initiative by the Administration and to work hard with my colleagues here in Congress to pursue peace and justice--and I look forward to an end to the Turkish occupation and oppression of the sovereign nation of Cyprus.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to put a stop to a program that I believe is corporate welfare, pure and simple. We have heard on this floor tonight some agonizing debates about spending small amounts of money for vaccinations, for child health, for family planning, and those are difficult questions for us to answer. I would suspend if the Chair wishes me to suspend.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, who among us has not had to face some agonizing and difficult questions as constituents come to us and talk about their lack of health insurance, or they talk about their lack of employment, or they talk about their lack of housing. I think those same constituents would be astonished, astonished to find that the full faith and credit of the United States Government, their tax money, stands behind private investments in foreign countries by the McDonalds Corporation, by Du Pont, by CitiCorp, by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in America. The President of the United States, Mr. Chairman, said very articulately a few years ago that it was his goal to end welfare as we know it. Tonight in this amendment we have the chance to begin the process of ending corporate welfare as we know it. Now there will be those who will object to this amendment and say we just cannot pull the plug on the OPIC program all at once, it would cause chaos, and that is not what this amendment does. This amendment says that no funds under this bill may be used to authorize new expenditures, new loan guarantees, new insurance policies. It says to OPIC that they must stop with the deals they have already done. And let me make a procedural point. My colleagues very often hear that these appropriations bills are not the proper forum to decide policy questions, and I generally agree with that. Let me point out to my colleagues that OPIC was not reauthorized through the regular process, and I believe it is a prudent thing for us to do to stop the activities of this corporate welfare agency in its tracks and permit an authorizing bill to come to this floor so that those of us who believe that the OPIC program should be organized in a different way or done away with, as I believe, would have the opportunity to fully debate that question. Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity for us to say that the programs that have been done thus far should continue as they wind down, but that no new loans, no new guarantees, no new authority should be issued on behalf of the taxpayers of this country to the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in this country to invest overseas. There are far better uses of our tax dollars than for Uncle Sam to become a risky international venture capitalist. Support of this amendment which I am proud to offer with my Republican colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my independent colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and supported by fine Members like the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) would accomplish what I have just suggested. It would stop the programs of OPIC in their tracks. It would permit us to come forward and debate a reauthorization at the proper time, and it would save the taxpayers money. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that cessation of OPIC's activities would save the Federal taxpayers $296 million over the course of the first 5 years. Let us end corporate welfare as we know it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and put a stop to this corporate welfare.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, one of the things I wanted to make clear is that the chairman, I am sure in good faith, made a representation earlier there had been an agreement by me not to offer this amendment. That is not accurate. I did not make any representation to anyone to that effect, and I wanted to clear that up for the record. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask the chairman how the time would be allocated; who would control the time?

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

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a great day, on which 30 sixth grade students from the Shady Lane Elementary School reached all of the appropriate levels on their Terra Nova test. Ms. Pat Campanile's sixth grade class is an outstanding group of young people. I wish the best of luck to the following group of sixth graders who shared this special day with me at the Shady Lane School: Courtney Callahan, Nicholas Battee, Jaimie Beeker, Destiny Bingham, Brian Buck, John Childress, Robert Kilcourse, Kody McMichael, Marisa Peters, Matthew Raively, Deborah Robinson, Karen Sabater, Donald Smith, Richard Smith, Marcus Smith, Ayana Thomas, Jessica Welch, George Williams, and Nylan Wolcott.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a great day, on which thirty Kindergarten students from the Shady Lane Elementary School reached all of the appropriate levels on their Terra Nova test. Ms. Martha Wilson's Kindergarten class is an outstanding group of young people. I wish the best of luck to the following group of kindergartners who shared this special day with me at the Shady Lane School: Courtney Callahan, Nicholas Battee, Jaimie Beeker, Destiny Bingham, Brian Buck, John Childress, Robert Kilcourse, Kody McMichael, Marisa Peters, Matthews Raively, Deborah Robinson, Karen Sabater, Donald Smith, Richard Smith, Marcus Smith, Ayana Thomas, Jessica Welch, George Williams, and Nylan Wolcott.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gejdenson for yielding this time. I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their cooperation in including two items of legislation I have proposed in the en bloc amendment. I am very proud of my country. Throughout history, great powers have used their power usually when they are attacked or to gain treasure or territory. I am very proud of the fact that our country, as a great power, has chosen to exert its considerable power and influence to promote a cause, and that cause is that nations should resort to peaceful means of negotiation and law to resolve their disputes rather than resorting to violence. My two amendments speak to that principle. Amendment No. 34 expresses our sense that the water boundaries established in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 and the 1932 convention between Italy and Turkey established the borders between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean today, and it calls upon Turkey to resort to the ordinary processes of international law and not violence if it objects to that conclusion. I appreciate the gentleman from New York mentioning my amendment with respect to China. It calls upon the President to continue to urge the People's Republic of China to renounce any offensive strike policy against the free people of Taiwan. Certainly there are differences between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, but we recognize that the proper method to resolve those differences is by international law and negotiation, not by conflict. The free people of Taiwan and the free people of the United States deserve no less. Again I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman and the ranking member, and I urge my colleagues to support these amendments as well as the entire en bloc amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, due to travel restrictions, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my coauthor of the amendment, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for their cooperation in this. I think there is broad consensus that no child should have to sit at the back of the bus educationally or economically. This amendment is making sure that every child if he or she is willing to work for it and has the ability not only does not have to sit at the back of the bus but can own the bus company someday. This is an idea about introducing very young people to the idea that they can take their creative energies, pour them into the founding and growth of a business and accomplish, many, many things. This is an idea that marries the best impulses of both political traditions. It recognizes the importance of government acting affirmatively to provide opportunities to young people who may not have that opportunity through the public education system, and it recognizes the provocative power of the private sector in developing new products, creating jobs and expanding this country's great technological lead around the world. I know that the gentleman from Ohio has seen in Ohio and around the country as I have seen in New Jersey the great promise and enthusiasm that young people have when they are enlightened at an early age to the power of entrepreneurial work. Educating our teachers to enlighten children and young people as to that is a very worthy goal. So I was proud to work with him on this amendment. I appreciate very much the considerations being given by both the majority and minority on the committee, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I appreciate the kind words my colleagues have said. I learned well from my late father-in-law, Dr. Alan Emerson Wolf, a career educator in the Pennsylvania public schools, as is the chairman of this committee, that well-empowered, well-trained principals are a key to quality public education. That is the idea behind this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe we can briefly and expeditiously move through this amendment. There is a strong bipartisan consensus in the committee and I believe in this House for the proposition that well-trained, well-prepared educators should interact with our children on a regular basis. There has been much good work done here today on the issue of training teachers. We may disagree over some of the particulars, but we all agree on the proposition that well-motivated and trained teachers are a real asset to our education system. I believe that that same principle should extend to the principals of our schools around the country. One of the key differences between a succeeding school and a failing school is the presence or absence of an empowered, motivated leader serving in the principal's office. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has contributed some significant work to this bill for which I applaud him, and I am trying to supplement what he has already done by suggesting in this amendment that one of the criteria which ought to be evaluated with respect to the professional development plans submitted by school districts under this bill is their plan for and preparations for a comprehensive program of principal development and training. The principal really is both the chief executive officer and the chief operating officer of the school. He or she is financial planner, medical adviser, social worker, business manager, mentor, referee, community liaison, ambassador and many, many other things. It is a job that requires updating and recharging of one's batteries. So the purpose of this amendment is to be sure that those considerations are taken into account when the professional development plans are offered. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding this time to me. I rise in joining with the spokesman for the Parent Teachers Association of America, the organizations of teachers throughout America, and the organization of school board leaders throughout America in opposing the bill that is before us. The bill that is before us makes seductive claims but fails to deliver on them when we read the bill. There is probably no one in this body that would not want to vote for legislation that provides a significant source of funding for local school decision-makers to do good things to improve public education in their communities. That is a very seductive claim, but, Mr. Chairman, read the bill, because that is not what the bill accomplishes. Support for this bill rests on two claims. The first is, as one of my friends on the other side said, we can have our cake and eat it too. With all due respect, I think his claim is more like Marie Antoinette. It is let them eat cake, because this bill does not say that any significant amount will be guaranteed for class size reduction. It says a portion of the funds will be dedicated to class size reduction. One percent, that qualifies. Five percent, that qualifies. How large the portion is is not spelled out in this legislation. They also make the seductive claim that this will improve teacher quality, and we are all for that; and they talk about reducing the power of bureaucrats, and we are all for that. But, Mr. Chairman, there is some bureaucrats in State education departments too, and there are some bureaucrats in local school districts too, and when they get ahold of the language that is in this bill, there is the chance for them to drive a truck through the loophole. This bill says that they can use the money to establish programs that recruit professionals from other fields and provide such professionals with alternative routes to teacher certification. I assume they can hire a head-hunting firm under a consulting contract to hire new teachers. This bill says they can use the money to create innovative professional development programs including programs that train teachers to utilize technology. I guess that means they can hire 5 or 10 new administrators that could design a program to teach technology and attend conferences. It says they can use the money for development and utilization of proven cost-effective strategies for the delivery of professional development activities such as technology. I guess that means if the board of education wanted to attend a conference at Disney World to learn about technology, they could use Federal money to do so. We are celebrating the 30th anniversary of man's landing on the Moon from the Nixon administration. This bill reminds me of the Nixon administration. It is revenue sharing for public education. It is wrong, and it should be defeated.