Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the author of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude by saying that I feel like a lay person among professionals, that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) are professional teachers of math and science. I know they share the same goal. I would just respectfully say that I think Mr. Holt's means of achieving that goal is the preferred one, and I would urge colleagues on both sides to support his amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud the action of the 105th Congress to withhold all aid for Turkey in the 1999 appropriations bills. For the past 25 years, Turkey has brutally oppressed the people of Cyprus and committed atrocious human rights violations. Despite the condemnation of the international community, Turkey has refused to withdraw its troops from Cyprus or improve its record on human rights. The United States must take the lead in resolving this conflict in the Mediterranean. Not only is it our moral obligation to oppose unjust oppression and brutal human rights violations, but a lasting resolution to the Cyprus problem would also improve relations between Greece and Turkey, strengthen the peace and stability of the Eastern Mediterranean region, and serve important United States interests. I have been delighted to work with Congressman John Edward Porter, a key member of the House Appropriations Committee and a great leader on these issues. Congressman Porter and I introduced H.R. 388 and H.R. 1361 in the 105th Congress to address the situation in Cyprus. These bills proposed to withhold all American military and economic assistance to Turkey unless Turkey peacefully resolved the conflict with Cyprus and halted all human rights violations. I am very pleased that Congressman Porter and I were able to achieve our goal when these funds were withheld in 1999 appropriations. I join my colleague in urging this Congress and the President to continue to deny aid to Turkey until these diplomatic and human rights requirements are met.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate United States Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot and Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh for their efforts in the most recent phase of bi-lateral talks between India and the United States. Though the full details of the talks remain undisclosed, as they should, all reports are that much progress is being made in strengthening relations of the two countries. I fully acknowledge and support the United States' foreign policy principle of opposing nuclear proliferation, but I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize that exceptions to that principle may occasionally be warranted Such exceptions should be based on the security needs of a nation, the entirety of that nation's relationship--economic, cultural, and diplomatic--with the United States, and the nation's willingness to participate in international arms control efforts. Based on such criteria, I assert that India is a good candidate for such an exception to United States non-proliferation policy and would like to voice my hope that Mr. Talbot is working hard to lift remaining multilateral sanctions against India, especially the remaining World Bank lending sanctions. Again, I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Talbot and Mr. Singh for their hard work in this vital arena, congratulate them on their success thus far, and wish them the best in the future negotiations.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is an important component of the New Jersey shore line. It plays a vital role in educating visitors and citizens of our state alike that New Jersey is a beautiful and scenic place to live and visit. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route gives us the opportunity to both preserve and appreciate the beauty of the Jersey shore. The trail, which begins in Perth Amboy, runs the entire length of New Jersey's Atlantic Ocean shore, traversing eight counties. It goes through the Pine Barrens, one of the most beautiful sections of the Garden State, all the way to the southern tip of historic Cape May. The trail then follows the Delaware Bay northward to Deepwater, New Jersey. This Trail was first established over a decade ago in 1988. It has been a joint effort of the State of New Jersey, the National Park Service, and other organizations. Their efforts have provided much public appreciation, education, and enjoyment of this scenic and natural area of New Jersey. The bill before the Congress today will continue these efforts into the next century. H.R. 171 extends the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail's authorization for five years. it will further help to strengthen the Trail, by increasing its authorized funding level from $1 million to $4 million. I commend my colleague from South Jersey, Congressman LoBiondo, for his efforts in this Congress as well as in previous years on behalf of the Coastal Heritage Trail. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. Thank you.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 17, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the articles of impeachment because I believe although the President's behavior was deplorable, I believe he has not committed a high crime and misdemeanor. So this decision is wrong for today. But, Mr. Speaker, this decision is wrong for the ages because let me predict what is going to happen. Last year the United States Supreme Court said: ``You can now proceed with a civil suit against a sitting President.'' The next time we have a polarizing President and a Congress from a different party, here is what is going to happen: There is going to be a civil suit launched against that President. He or she is going to be dragged into discovery, and his or her opponents in this Congress are going to try to categorize anything they can as perjury and obstruction of justice. Articles of impeachment will be pursued, and the country will be weakened. It is my sincere prayer here tonight that our children will not bear the bitter fruits of the reckless seeds that our colleagues are sowing here today. The Constitution has worked well for over 200 years. Leave it alone. Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain my reasoning in voting against the impeachment of the President. The Constitution recognizes a difference between misconduct--even criminal misconduct--and the High Crimes and Misdemeanors that are required for impeachment. My judgment is that the President's misconduct, though deplorable, does not rise to the level required by the Constitution for impeachment. And my judgment is that we will set a dangerous precedent if the majority in the House disagree with me, and decide to vote for these articles of impeachment which are before us. We will have lowered the bar to impeachment, and this action, coupled with the Supreme Court's decision to allow sitting Presidents to be sued in a civil lawsuit while in office, will lead to more partisan mischief in coming years, which could gravely harm our government and our nation. The country would be best served by a return to the important business at hand: education, health care, Social Security, and international problems.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) of the committee for their outstanding work, and thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), for bringing this to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely not in favor of any watering down or weakening of the child labor laws and protections of this country. Decades ago people fought very hard to achieve those laws, and I do not want to see them weakened in any way. I believe that this is not a weakening of child labor laws, with all due respect to those who raise objections. I think there are three important safeguards in this bill that continue to protect child labor. Safeguard Number 1 is the requirement that the minor who is involved have a valid state driver's license in effect at the time he or she is working. That is very important, because a state is not going to give a young person a driver's license who is not worthy or permit that driver's license to stay in effect if the driver is unsafe. The second important check are the many limitations in this bill that both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) describe, limitations on the number of hours the young person may drive, limitations on the miles the young person may drive, limitations on the weight of the vehicle, no authority for towing another vehicle and proper instruction on proper safety uses of the vehicle. The final check I think is one that comes from common sense. We certainly know that there are some reckless teenage drivers. There are some reckless drivers of every age. I think the best check against reckless teenage drivers are the auto dealers who are responsible for the vehicles. The last thing in the world that a responsible auto dealer wants to do is to have an employee of that dealership take the vehicle out on the road and drive it recklessly, because they are either going to be liable to the owner of the car, if it is being repaired, or the factory, if the car has not yet been sold. Common sense tells us that the employers are not likely to entrust the operation of these cars to highly irresponsible drivers. Finally, let me say that I think that this is a bill that is really a youth employment bill. There are many young people, male and female, who have gotten their start working part-time at an auto dealership. Frankly, if the young person is not permitted to drive on occasion, his or her value to the auto dealer as an employer is rather diminished. We are challenged in this country and in this Congress with coming up with ways that private sector employers can reach out and employ young people who are trying to help support their families or earn money for their education. I can think of no better way than the elimination of arbitrary and capricious rules. I believe that this legislation, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is an example of legislation that removes such arbitrary and capricious rules. I am pleased to support it. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), for his leadership in this effort.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding. I rise in strong support of this bill and urge its passage. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their leadership in this effort, for the staffs of the committee and the Members. And let me especially thank Audrey Williams and Edgar Ho from my office, who worked so very hard on this bill in making it a reality. I am especially pleased that among the provisions that I offered, the committee has seen fit to include four provisions which I think are very important: First, every student in America will know of their right to have an income-contingent loan, that is, to pay back their loan as a function of their income; so that, as their income rises, so will their payment, and if their income falls, so will their payment. Second, a student who cannot receive a loan from a private lender has his or her right reaffirmed as a lender of last resort to go to either a guaranty agency or the direct loan program or both, and I think that is very important. Third, I appreciate the fact that we have once again restored the incentive for private career schools, some of our very best job trainers, to train those who most need help in job training to move from welfare to work. Finally, I appreciate the fact that the committee has included very visionary legislation which permits colleges and universities to offer voluntary early retirement packages to professors throughout the country. This will save a significant amount of money for the higher education system. It will open up faculty slots for young professors, particularly young women and minority professors, and I believe it will inject new blood onto our campuses where it is needed most. I urge the passage of the bill. I look forward to the day when the President signs this bill, because I believe with that signature he will be widening even further the doors of educational opportunity for people throughout this country. I urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the claim filed by Hill International, Inc. against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have been involved in this fight with Hill since they approached Members and Senators for help more than five years ago, and I am dismayed by the refusal of the Saudis to settle their debts with American businesses. In the late 1970's, the Saudi Royal Commission refused to pay for $55 million in additional engineering work required on a desalination plant in Yanbu City, Saudi Arabia. A compromise negotiated three years ago by the late Representative Bill Emerson remains unpaid by the Saudis. Saudi Ambassador Bandar is now refusing to admit he ever asked Representative Emerson to help broker the claim. This is unconscionable. In a recent discussion with Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, I reiterated Hill International's request for a meeting with Ambassador Bandar and interested Members of Congress. With the expected visit of Crown Prince Abdullah to Washington, DC on September 24th, I would hope Ambassador Bandar would want to avoid an embarrassing situation and arrange our meeting promptly. To continue his present course of action would reflect poorly on our friendly relations with our ally in the Persian Gulf. Hill International employees about 100 people in Willingboro, New Jersey which I represent. The failure of the Saudis to pay this claim put the jobs of my constituents at risk. I urge a quick resolution on this matter.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). I congratulate him for it. The life of Alysa Flatow was only 20 years long, and I am sure that her family feels a pain that is beyond description. But I am also sure that we can do something collectively here tonight that will help her life have even more meaning than it has already had. We can change the law of our country and say to terrorists, whether in Iran or around the world, that in this country you will be held accountable. If you appear before our courts and you are adjudicated guilty, you cannot find a loophole or an escape. This is a legacy that this young woman's life can leave for generations to come that if, God forbid, if someone else is a victim of terrorism, those terrorists can and will be held accountable in a U.S. court of law. I urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. And, if the gentleman would yield, it is my understanding, and I repeat what he said, that there are 40,000, 40,000 Turkish troops in the northern part of Cyprus. I recall sitting in the presidential residence with President Clerides, and he pointed out to the visiting delegation that if Turkey were to launch an attack it would take less than 5 minutes for Turkish fighter planes to reach the presidential residence where we sat that day. This is someone who really is in a position of disadvantage militarily but who is willing to give up even his meager defenses that he has right now in order to boldly go after the cause of peace. And again I commend what the gentleman has said. I think it explicitly and accurately states what happened, and I encourage him to continue his leadership.

Mr. ANDREWS. I think probably the better description would be a national guard.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his persistent and consistent guidance and leadership on this issue. I thank him for inviting me to speak tonight. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be in Cyprus with my wife and many of my friends about a year ago, and I was reminded, as I traveled there with many of my friends from New Jersey whose roots are in Cyprus, of the very real deprivation that they have felt as mothers and fathers and as grandparents. One of the things that we find the most enjoyment from and the most richness from is showing our children the places where we were as children, the schools we attended, the parks we played in, the homes that we lived in, and also it is important to show them the graves of their ancestors, of their grandmothers and grandfathers. I saw, Mr. Speaker, during that trip to Cyprus the very real heartache and very real pain of my friends who could not show their children those places where they had grown up, those places where they had been educated, indeed, those very places where their mothers and fathers had been buried, because as Cypriots, as citizens of a free and independent Cyprus, they were barred from crossing the Green Line and going to the occupied portion of the island. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a number of us on the trip, we were also barred from crossing the Green Line, and meeting with officials north of the Green Line, unless we went through what we considered to be an inappropriate and ritualistic meeting where we could hear propaganda before we did so. We got a small taste, Mr. Speaker, on that trip of what the free people of Cyprus must feel every day. I think it is important that at this time we do more than just condemn the atrocities which commenced long before 24 years ago but which intensified 24 years ago and have been bad ever since then. I think it is important we talk about an idea and a plan for peace and justice and progress. These are ideas, Mr. Speaker, which I have conveyed to our diplomatic corps, to my colleagues here in the Congress, and I would like to convey them through the Speaker tonight to those who listen to us. I believe that the time has come for us to focus, as my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, just said, on Ankara and not on the puppet government in northern Cyprus. It is very clear to me that the decisions are made in Turkey and they are, in fact, made by the Turkish military leadership. I believe the United States should hold out to the Turkish military leadership not only the sanctions which we have all supported, including the elimination of military aid to Turkey in the foreign operations appropriations bill, which will be before us some time in the next few weeks, which I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for, but I also believe that we should hold out incentives as well to a just and reasonable course of action by Turkey. I believe that Cyprus' application for accession to the European Union should be supported by the United States and granted promptly, but I also believe we should hold out to Turkey the ultimate promise of its accession to the European Union, which I believe would be supported by the people of Greece as well, if the following conditions were met, and these conditions must be met: First, Turkey must cease the atrocities against the Kurds both within Turkey and outside of Turkey. Second, Turkey must cooperate to a peaceful solution for their Armenian people and stop its practice of perpetuating the difficulties and indeed atrocities that the Armenian people have so often felt. Third, Turkey must immediately cease the aggression in the Aegean and make sure that it acts responsibly toward Greece and its rightful claims in the Aegean. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Turkey must make sure that its surrogates and itself respond appropriately in international negotiations on Cyprus. I had, Mr. Speaker, the privilege of meeting President Clerides about a year ago and hearing firsthand the proposal that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) just outlined. It was a bold proposal that was reminiscent of what President Sadat extended to the Israelis and that Prime Minister Begin reciprocated 20 years ago. It was reminiscent of what brave people have done in South Africa to bring peace and justice there. It was reminiscent of the bold steps that Senator Mitchell was able to bring about when he went to Northern Ireland last year. President Clerides, frankly to his own political disadvantage, offered disarmament, offered massive investment in the northern part of Cyprus so that its economy could rise and offered a long-term policy of cooperation and rapprochement. I believe that these are the terms that Turkey should accept, these are the terms that could lead us to peace, and I believe we, as Americans, Mr. Speaker, should be on record as saying that we fully embrace these positions and concur with their aims. And, Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying that I believe that we need to do more as a Congress than simply protest, although protest we will when we adopt the foreign aid appropriations bill this year and zero is next to Turkey in that bill. We should do more than protest. We should facilitate a new growth and evolution toward peace, a path that will take Turkey toward the West, toward secularism, towards being a gateway to great promise in the Eastern part of the world, but on the conditions and only on the conditions that hostilities against the Kurds cease, that hostilities in the Aegean cease, that cooperation for the welfare of the Armenians commence and that once and for all we reach a settlement for a free, independent and sovereign Cyprus. Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. ANDREWS. One point the gentleman just made, I would like to bring out and amplify. Do you know the precise number of persons that Cyprus has under arms in the southern part of the island?

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield just one more time, I want to re-emphasize what he just said, that there is a definite difference between self-defense and provocation, and I think it is very clear that the decision by President Clerides to try to defend the free people of Cyprus is self-defense and not provocation, and I am disappointed that our government has gone on record indicating its reluctance to see that happen. I believe that the proper policy should be for us to recognize the right of the free people of Cyprus to have that self-defense.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a group of pre- kindergartners who are on their way to educational achievement in the future. Under the guidance of two dedicated teachers, Mrs. Wilcox and Mrs. Pappalardos, these students graduated from the Beechwood School in Haddonfield, New Jersey on June 4,1998. I am profoundly proud that my daughter, Jacquelyn Andres, joined with her classmates in graduating from the Pre-K program at Beechwood. I hope you will join me in wishing these bright stars a bright future. These dedicated teachers and their wonderful students deserve our praise. The 1998 graduating students of the Beechwood Pre-K program are: Jacquelyn Andrews, Jason Bloch, Maria Cleary, Kevin Cook, Olivia DiBlase, Lauren DiDonato, Matthew Falcone, William Freeman, Lexic Guistwhite, Gregor, Herrmann, Dana Kamerling, Sionna Kelly, Shawn McDonald, Connor McElwee, Sarah Meeteer, Chelsea Mettinger, Dominic Payne, Benjamin Potts, Daniel Schwab, Allison Smith, Tyler Stone, Martha Theodoris, Sophia Theodoris.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, a great Nation needs a great national passenger rail system, and I believe we have established one in the United States that is getting even better literally with every day, as we have read some very good news from Amtrak today. In 1987, the Congress came up with an innovative plan for a review council that would give a fair, public, and objective evaluation of where Amtrak is going and the progress that it is making. I believe that this bill makes an important contribution to that effort. I particularly commend the chairman for appropriating $450,000 instead of the $1.9 million which was originally requested. I think that another way we can expand on the chairman's efforts to make sure that we get a fair and efficient evaluation of where Amtrak is going is my amendment, which would specifically say that funds under this section may not be used for outside consultants. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have ample and more than adequate expertise within the members of the council and the Department of Transportation, and I believe this amendment would accomplish those objectives. I also would like to engage the Chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy at this time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I want to just conclude my remarks by also thanking the chairman for his support of $50 million for the job access and reverse commute funding in a different part of this bill. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague, was the leader in getting that program authorized. We appreciate the effort in getting it appropriated.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it is also my understanding that the committee expects the council to spend money on travel only when absolutely necessary to fulfill its responsibilities as prescribed by Congress in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. Is that also the understanding and expectation of the chairman? I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and for his support of Amtrak. In particular, I commend the chairman for his responsible action of providing only a small portion of the funds requested by the council. Some members of the council have requested an appropriation of $1.9 million. The committee has appropriated only $450,000. This is a clear signal to the American taxpayers that Congress is active in its fight against wasteful spending. It is my understanding that in appropriating this money, the committee expects the council to follow the dictates provided in law that their meeting should be open to the public. Is that also the chairman's understanding?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. The amendment proposed by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and the coauthor of legislation, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself, would have restored the sleepwear safety standard that worked so very well for 24 years. I want to take a moment and talk about why this is important, and how we got to this point. It is important, Mr. Chairman, for a very simple reason. When people go into the store and they look to buy sleepwear for their children, there are basically two kinds of sleepwear. There is sleepwear that will catch on fire and burn in an instant, that is not treated for flammability, and then there is sleepwear that will not catch on fire and it will burn much more slowly, because it is treated for flammability. For 24 years, the law of this country recognized that distinction. If we went in and bought sleepwear for our children that was treated for flammability, we knew it, because there was a label there. If it were not treated for flammability, we knew that, because there was no label. Parents and others buying for their children could be intelligent consumers and safeguard their children. If we listened to the testimony of emergency room nurses, emergency room doctors, firefighters, burn center personnel, lots of nonpolitical people who deal with burned children, they would have told us that this law made sense. If it is not broke, do not fix it. In 1996, for reasons that are inexplicable, the Consumer Product Safety Commission decided to change this law and take the warning labels off flammable sleepwear. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I introduced a bill to say let us go back to a standard that worked for 24 years, and let us get it done through this legislation. Through the cooperation and farsightedness of the chairman of the subcommittee of this bill today, we were given that opportunity. We appreciate it very much, and thank him for his cooperation. When this bill was brought to the floor, the rule was written in such a way that any one Member, one Member, could stand up and have this provision stripped from the bill without a vote. That just happened a few minutes ago. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has now done the next best thing. She has said, if we cannot get the old standard back, let us enjoin the use of the new one, which emergency room doctors, emergency room nurses, and other personnel in the fire service around this country say do not work. What we really should be doing here, Mr. Chairman, is having a fair debate and an up-or-down vote on the real, underlying bill, which says let us put the standard that worked for 24 years back in. We were not getting that. But this is the next best thing. On behalf of children across this country, consumers across this country, emergency room nurses, burn center personnel, and on behalf of Republicans and Democrats in this institution, I would implore and urge my colleagues to vote yes on the DeLauro amendment.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to set the record straight on the position of Ann Brown, who was the chairperson of the Consumer Product Safety Commission at the time the rule change was done. I have in my possession, and I will submit it at the appropriate time for the Record a letter from Ann Brown to my the gentlewoman from Connecticut, April 10, 1998, in which she says the following. It is addressed to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro): ``As you know, I share your views.'' The letter goes on to say, ``in these circumstances, it appears the only remedy is legislative action to restore the previous rule.'' The previous rule, referring to the one that was in effect for 24 years. So, Ms. Brown's position is in support of our effort. The second thing I would like to say is it is extraordinary, this commitment to regular order and procedure. This is the same bill that is rewriting the entire public housing policy of the United States of America through legislating on an appropriations bill. I would invite my colleagues who are so enraged by this departure from regular order to join those of us who are concerned about that.