Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the system that is over 200 years old in our country has been a very wise one indeed. It is a system in which we vigorously debate and often disagree about what direction our country's policies should go in before we engage in conflict. But it is also a tradition that says that, once we engage in conflict, we unify. It is the wisdom of this motion to instruct that reflects that tradition, and it is because of that wisdom that I rise in strong support of the motion. This motion appropriately looks both backward and forward. It looks backward to say thank you to a lot of people who made a tremendous effort to make the successful result in Kosovo possible, to our very brave and noble troops, to their families who supported them back home, to our allies who stood with us, to the front-line States who endured, and, yes, to the leaders of our country, the military leaders in uniform, the diplomatic leaders at the State Department, Secretary Cohen at the Defense Department, and certainly to the Commander in Chief, to President Clinton. These are words that are definitely worthy of being said by this Congress. It is also important to support this motion because it looks forward. It recognizes that although the conflict is hopefully over in Kosovo, the job is not, that there still are objectives to be met to establish a framework under international law for a Democratic government to make sure that those, including President Milosevic, who commit crimes against humanity are brought to justice, to be sure that refugees are brought to a safe and humane home and resting place once again. This resolution is in the finest bipartisan tradition of our country. It looks forward and says there is work still to be done in a bipartisan way, and it looks backward to the brave and noble work of our troops, their families, and their leaders and delivers a well- deserved thanks. I am proud to support it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on roll call numbers 167-169, I was unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on each of them. At the time of the votes, I was proudly attending a ceremony in honor of my wife, Camille Spinello Andrews. In addition to her tireless dedication as the mother of our two children, Jacquelyn and Josie, Camille serves as the Associate Dean of Enrollment and Projects for Rutgers University School of Law-Camden Campus. Her work in this capacity is well-regarded both by her colleagues and throughout the New Jersey legal community. On June 7, her excellent work was publicly recognized in a ceremony in which she was awarded the Alfred C. Clapp Distinguished Service Award. Presented by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, this award is an expression of appreciation to legal professionals whose voluntary service has significantly contributed to the field of continuing legal education. At this ceremony, I was proud to honor Camille with a Congressional Commendation. Proclaiming June 7, 1999 to be Camille Spinello Andrews Day throughout the First Congressional District of New Jersey, this commendation is a small token of the great respect I have for Camille's work. Her service to our community deserves the thanks and gratitude of us all. I am fortunate to love and receive the love of such a special woman. Balancing the dual responsibilities of public service and family life is always a challenging task. I thank my constituents for their understanding and appreciate the strong support they have given to me and my family.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that one of the bipartisan success stories of the last few years in America's transportation policy has been the improvements that have taken place in Amtrak. I am a frequent rider on Amtrak and a great devotee of its efforts. I salute all the men and women who work so hard for Amtrak. I also believe that the efforts of the chairman of the authorizing committee the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), together with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), their ranking members, have helped to take what was a very critical and difficult situation just a few years ago and turn it into a success story. I commend and congratulate them for that. This amendment is really offered in the spirit of continuing the success that I believe they and the thousands of men and women who work for Amtrak have achieved, because it is based on the idea, Mr. Chairman, that too many cooks spoil the broth. Amtrak has achieved a labor-management cooperation. It is achieving a program of progress together with its unions and its management that have improved service, increased revenues and expanded future opportunities for Amtrak for years to come. I believe when something is on the right track, when something is proceeding the way that it should, that second-guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking really is inappropriate. The role of the Amtrak Reform Council lends itself to the possibility of that Monday morning quarterbacking and second-guessing. There is a delicate balance that has been established in labor and management in Amtrak, with the cooperation of the rail unions, with the able leadership of the board of directors of Amtrak, and its management headed by Mr. Warrington. I think that the possibility of mischief being created that would upset that delicate balance, that frankly would roll back meaningful and important labor protections for men and women who work for Amtrak would be the wrong thing to do. Now, I had contemplated offering an amendment that would have the effect of defunding, or zeroing out, or eliminating the Amtrak Reform Council. In retrospect, I believe that would be the wrong approach to take at this time. Again, I would salute the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in contributing to the worthy mission of the Amtrak Reform Council. In lieu of that idea, I offer this amendment which limits the funding in the new fiscal year for the Amtrak Reform Council to the same amount that the reform council received in fiscal year 1999, namely, $450,000. I would commend the gentleman from Virginia as chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Minnesota as ranking member for their efforts they have already made in reducing the funding request, which was well over $1 million, down to $750,000, and I thank them for that. I believe, though, that there is no evidence that justifies an increase in the funding of the Amtrak Reform Council, so it is the express intent of my amendment and the effect of my amendment that we reduce the funding for the Amtrak Reform Council down to its fiscal year 1999 level of $450,000. Those of us who believe that there is risk of mischief, that there is the chance that important labor protections would be undone, those of us who believe that the balance that the board of directors and the management and labor of Amtrak are achieving would be disrupted, believe that the best way to limit that risk is to appropriately limit the funding of the Amtrak Reform Council to the level that it was funded in the 1999 budget of $450,000. To summarize, this is a compromise between those of us who believe that maybe there is no role at all for the Amtrak Reform Council and those who would wish to see it do more. The compromise calls for the limitation of funds to the 1999 level. The amendment cuts $300,000 from the level of appropriation. I again express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member for the fiscally prudent steps they have already taken. I would just respectfully say I believe we should just go a little further and limit the funding to the 1999 level, in particular importance to making sure that the important labor protections that are in our law protecting Amtrak employees and passengers remain in the law.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I just want the Record to show some of the fiscal facts about the Amtrak Reform Council and, in particular, what many of us believe is its potential for doing mischief to the rights of working men and women in the hard-fought rights of those who belong to collective bargaining units to unions in the Amtrak company. The director, the executive director of the commission, makes $148,000 a year, more than we do. Now I am sure that individual works very hard, but so do we, and I am not sure that that is an appropriate expenditure. There is $700,000 for technical support and analysis that was requested without much delineation as to what that was for. One of our concerns is that there would be the overuse of outside consultants, often at the cost of $400 an hour or so, and again I want to say for the record that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) I think has done an admirable job in paring down this request, and I acknowledge and respect that. They have proposed a great deal of travel from their travel budgets. And I would also point out that ARC, the Amtrak Reform Council, has at its disposal the resources of the Department of Transportation already. We do not need to reinvent this wheel or charge the public twice for something already at its disposal. The Inspector General's office at the DOT is also conducting an ongoing assessment of Amtrak. The GAO is available with its resources to investigate and think about these questions, and then various other offices under the auspices of the Secretary of Transportation. So I simply believe that it is prudent and right to strike a balance by limiting funding of the ARC to last year's amount that was in last year's bill of $450,000, and I would just caution that many of us are concerned that broader financing means broader power, and broader power means the ability to do broader mischief to the hard-fought rights that were won in collective bargaining of the men and women who work for Amtrak.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding this time to me. I want to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) for their leadership in bringing this measure to floor on behalf of my constituents who are part of the region that will be most immediately benefit by this legislation. I thank my colleagues. I also want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has approached this legislation with his usual tenacity and enthusiasm and given us all a model to follow on the effort to get something like this to the floor. I congratulate him and all those involved, and I especially want to thank my new colleague and friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his effectiveness in helping to move a piece of legislation this important to the floor this early in his tenure, and we appreciate his efforts. I support this legislation for reasons of history, ecology and prosperity. The historical angle has been well described by my colleagues. There is a good chance that there would not be a United States of America without the bravery and valor of those who sacrificed their lives on the battlefields that will be commemorated and consecrated by this legislation. But not only is their sacrifice worthy of present mention, the reasons for which they have sacrificed have echoed through these very halls in the last few days. We have spent much of our time debating issues of religious liberty, the establishment of religion, the importance of a well-regulated militia. Issues that were the core of the dispute over 200 years ago are the core of our debates and disputes in the last few hours. So for those who would doubt the relevance of this history, I would not direct them not to the events of several decades or centuries ago, I would direct them to the debates we have had on this very floor this very day. For reasons of ecology I know that my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), in particular has made the preservation of open space a major priority of his tenure here, and those of us who are involved in this debate are pleased to join him in the preservation of some very important open space in an area that is under intense pressure for development. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) just said, one of the most desirable areas in America to live and develop a business are these areas. That is because they are so proximate to southern New Jersey I might add for the record. But there is intense scrutiny and pressure for development. It is very important that this is one of the tools for open space preservation that is at our disposal, and we are very wise to use it under this legislation. Finally, for reasons of prosperity, I would note that there are 1 million schoolchildren living in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, proximate to the location of the sights that are mentioned in this bill. Two of them are my schoolchildren, and I know that those schoolchildren will benefit greatly from the proximity of these consecrated sights and the museum which I am sure will follow so they can learn the lessons of our history and apply those lessons in an intelligent way to our future. So I would again commend the author of the legislation for his tenacity. He is doing a great service to our region. I am very proud to stand with him in support of this legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Conyers-Campbell substitute. We very often have to make difficult decisions around here balancing different interests. This is not a very difficult decision at all, because we are balancing the inconvenience of a relative handful of people versus the protection of human life. I would say we have heard a lot of statistics around here the last few hours about percentages that would be involved and numbers of people that would be involved. In my judgment, the real number is one. If one life is preserved, if one shooting is prevented because of this measure, it is worth it. Support the Conyers-Campbell substitute.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there are times in our public careers when the obligations of office require us to forego the immediate interests and needs of those whom we love most. Because it is my duty to attend to our business here in the Capitol, I am unable to attend a special Father's Day celebration with my oldest daughter, Jacquelyn Isabel Spinello Andrews, at her kindergarten class (Mrs. Esler's class) at the Atlantic Avenue School in Haddon Heights, New Jersey. Six year olds do not readily understand the absence of their fathers at important events. The pain of separation is further compounded by the fact that a voting session last week required me to miss an end of the year celebration for my youngest daughter, Josephine Carolyn Andrews, age 4, at the Beechwood School's pre-kindergarten class (Mrs. Rutkowski and Mrs. Provens). I hope that my children will understand that the exercise of duty does not negate the intense love I feel for them and pride my wife Camille and I draw from their lives and progress. In the instance of Jacquelyn's Father's Day celebration, duty took on a special meaning, because we were debating proposals to protect her and all children from school violence like the nightmare parents around this country have felt too often in the last few years. My absence was necessary for me to support a cause in which I believe. But my absence should not confuse the fact that my beautiful children--God's greatest gift to me ever--are more important than any cause. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my children and the children of all who serve in public life will understand that our motivation is to provide our children and all children with a loving and supportive community free of violence. Although no gift can replace our presence with those we love, I hope that our legislative efforts produce the gifts of a community worthy of the sweetness and innocence of our children. I thank my family for understanding that I must perform these duties and I reaffirm my love for Jacquelyn and Josie and their mother, in gratitude for the sacrifices they make.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, an angry, paranoid schizophrenic goes to a gun show at 10 o'clock on a Saturday morning, attempts to buy a gun. The police discover on Monday morning that he has a criminal background record of beating his wife and a long criminal rap sheet. Under the Dingell amendment, he gets to buy the gun. Under the McCarthy amendment, he does not. Support the McCarthy amendment. It is the real loophole closer. It is the one that we ought to support tonight.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and ranking minority Member for their willingness to work out a solution to this problem. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this summer and throughout the year around our country, we will unfortunately be faced with many natural disasters: forest fires, floods, other significant storms that deal a great blow to local communities. One of the key aspects of our disaster relief and disaster prevention effort is the use of airplanes in an emergency situation. Whether it is to put out fires or to airlift supplies and materiel, the use of our aircraft in a time of emergency is an essential ingredient towards solving a problem. Equally essential is the use of small airports and airfields around our country. For example, in my area of New Jersey, there is a small airport that often serves as a point of departure for airplanes that fight forest fires in the New Jersey pinelands. It is very important that these airports remain a part of our national air system, whether it is for emergency relief or whether it is for business or personal travel. Many of these airports are very challenged when they apply under the Airport Improvement Program because of the local match requirement. Some of the airports are run by public and municipal authorities that have a hard time raising the matching funds; others are privately owned, usually small business people, also finding it difficult to struggle to meet the matching funds. The idea behind my amendment is that the real measurable and tangible economic value of that disaster relief be credited toward the local matched portion of the AIP grant. In other words, a small airport that is instrumental in our efforts to prevent or provide relief from disaster would be credited on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the value of the emergency service that that airport is rendering, the lost income that that airport is rendering, as a matching requirement for the AIP grant. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this proposal makes sense from the point of view of emergency disaster relief. It is a fair measure economically for small airports, and I believe it would serve our Nation's air traffic system in a common-sense way. I have been privileged to discuss this matter with the chairman of the committee and members of the staff, and I understand that he has expressed an interest in working with us to try to facilitate these concerns. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I begin by offering my congratulations and thanks to the men and women in uniform who have done such a fantastic job in the Balkans. I hope that they and their families are listening and understand the unanimous feeling of pride and support for what they have done. The question before us this afternoon is what do we do next? This bill offers a good prescription for what not to do next, because if this bill becomes law, on the 30th of September, whatever efforts we are making to sustain the peace that has been won will terminate. Now, that is a shortsighted and I believe irrational approach to solving this problem. So we need to amend the bill. With all due respect, I do not think we need to amend the bill in the way that our friends from Florida and Indiana have proposed amending it, because they say before we could put peacekeeping forces in, as I understand it, since they are ground forces, there would have to be specific Congressional authorization. What clearly has happened is that the objectives of this campaign are being realized. The refugees are going home, the Serbian troops are being withdrawn, and the objectives are being realized. To force us to go through a process now where we cannot follow through on this decision that has been made until there has been a debate and vote here I think would be a mistake. It would be an equally grave mistake to tie the President's hands and to terminate his authority on the 30th of September, a truly arbitrary deadline. The right amendment to support is the Skelton amendment. It says the right thing, that the President in fact should come to this body for a supplemental appropriation and not pay for these operations out of the regular military budget. I agree with that. But it does not make the mistake of unduly tying the hands of the commander-in-chief and restraining him and our military leaders from following through on the peace that has been won with such valor and distinction in the last few weeks and months. I strongly support the Skelton amendment; oppose the others.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I believe it creates an entirely unworkable situation which could pose grave harm to the men and women in uniform who are serving in the Balkans. In order to understand that, we have to understand what would happen on September 20th if, as I expect, we have several thousand troops in place, conducting peacekeeping activities, and think about the options the President would have to continue that operation. The first option he would have, and I hope that he would do it, would be to come to this body for a supplemental appropriation above and beyond the regular defense appropriations for fiscal year 2000 to pay for the cost of this. And we could make an honest decision as to whether we want to do that and where the money ought to come from. I want to underline what the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and many others have said this afternoon, that that is the right thing, that is what he ought to do. But he may not do it. The President may not do that. And we may not act expeditiously if he does. About 2 weeks ago, just before the Memorial Day break, we were intending to get to work on this bill, and because of various legitimate political disagreements in this body, we were unable to pass a rule to take up this legislation. That could certainly happen again, certainly happen again in the context of a supplemental appropriation. The second option the President would have under normal circumstances would be to reallocate funding in the fiscal year 2000 bill for this purpose. Now that is what he would do in the absence of a supplemental if this amendment were not the law. But if this amendment becomes the law, as I understand it, the President cannot do that. It flatly bars any shift of funds, any transfer of accounts for the purpose of supporting the ongoing peacekeeping operation or any other operation which we may need in the Republic of Yugoslavia at that time. His third option, as I read it, his only option, would be completely unacceptable, and that would be to unilaterally and immediately stop any operations that our military is conducting in the Republic of Yugoslavia. I think that does not make a lot of sense. For those reasons, I would oppose.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the author, the gentleman from Indiana, if he has a question.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what does the President do on September 28 of 1999 if we have not gotten a supplemental through here, and he wants to leave 7- or 8,000 people there to do their job? How does he pay for it? I yield back for the answer.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services in a colloquy regarding the defense of the United States electric power grid against information attacks, something that is very prominent at a large regional institution in our area, Drexel University. A growing number of my constituents have expressed concern over the reliability of the U.S. electric power grid when challenged by natural disaster, terrorist attack or other threats. A major outage in the national electric power grid could severely cripple our society and significantly impact the national defense capabilities of this country. I raise this issue today because all Department of Defense facilities in the contiguous United States depend to a greater or lesser extent upon commercially owned and operated electric power grids that are managed through computer networks that are increasingly using the Internet as a communication and control network. Because of the interconnection of the Nation's electric power grid, the increased dependence on information systems and technology for control of the grid, and the potential threat of cyber-terrorism to the Nation's information infrastructure, I have personal concerns about the potential threat that targeted or massive outages could pose to the national security of the United States.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support allowing veterans with a service-connected disability of 30% or more to use military exchanges. I am pleased that the House Armed Service Committee approved report language urging the Pentagon, in coordination with the Veterans Administration, to study the feasibility of providing exchange privileges to veterans with a disability of 30% or more. I want to reiterate my support for this policy, and I hope that the Pentagon will favorably report back the results of their study to the Armed Services Committees in both the House and Senate before the end of this year. Today, as many as one million disabled and deserving veterans are unjustly denied the ability to patronize military exchanges. Exchange privileges are granted to veterans who incur a serious disability while in service that warrants medical retirement, but veterans whose disabilities increase after separation from military service are denied this privilege. I support extending exchange privileges to disabled veterans whose service-related injuries exacerbate over time. Many veterans who incurred service-connected injuries that did not appear initially to be serious enough to warrant medical retirement, but these injuries often have a delayed effect and develop later in life into more severe disabilities that significantly impair their health. The Department of Defense can afford to give exchange privileges to veterans with service-connected injuries which have led to a disability of 30% or more. I do not believe that allowing these deserving veterans exchange privileges will greatly burden exchange operations or the appropriated funds budget. Already, employees of the military exchange systems, who have never served a day in uniform, enjoy exchange shopping privileges. Disabled veterans deserve no less. We should grant exchange privileges to this group of patriots because it is the right, fair and honorable thing to do. I am pleased that the bill we are considering today urges the Pentagon to correct this injustice.