Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I freely acknowledge and commend both the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the committee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, for making significant reductions in payments to both lenders and guaranty agencies in this and prior bills. They certainly recognize the ability to have efficiencies. We may disagree about where that efficiency lies, but I certainly respect the effort and appreciate the time. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues an excerpt from the newsletter of the Conneaut Cellars Winery in Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania. It was written by Mr. Joal Wolf, who is the proprietor of the winery. I believe this text eloquently articulates the arguments against the national .08 standard. Recently neo-prohibitionists, social Do-Gooders, and short- sighted legislators (all in the business to scare you and make numbers look the worst possible) started their propaganda with nastier attacks due to the lack of attention in public. These attacks are direct at drinkers in general and unfortunately not at abusers and drunk drivers. They would like to duck the new reality, punish responsible drinkers, and blackmail states and local jurisdictions by withholding state highway funds (ISTEA) for not accepting a Blood Alcohol (BAC) level of 0.8%. Decades of government data show that the number one cause of drunk driving incidents is the alcohol abuser who drinks excessively and then drives. Yet the proposed legislation inexplicably ignores this reckless menace and instead calls for laws that would make it illegal for a 120 lb. woman to drive after drinking two glasses of wine within two hours. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the average BAC among fatally injured drunk drivers is 0.18%, and more than 80% of these drivers have at least 0.14% BAC. Federal government statistics show a very small percentage, not enough for casual effects, of accidents are caused by people with between 0.08 to 0.10% BAC. Fewer than 1.0% of fatalities involve drinking drivers (not drunks) with BAC under 0.10%. Drunk driving versus drinking and driving--why bother with semantics when highway carnage is at stake? The real problem is the act of driving drunk. The crime should be when your ability is truly impaired, whether it is alcohol, lack of sleep, anxiety, anger, illegal drugs, and so forth.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the American fire service, a history steeped in tradition about individuals risking their own lives to save the lives of others. As Chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I applaud the work of individuals and organizations, both past and present, who have preserved our communities and protected them against the threat of fire and other dangers. Protecting communities against fire exacts a toll on fire departments, whether they are paid or volunteer. We, as private citizens, should feel a sense of duty to help our first responders be properly trained and equipped to perform their work. For 350 years, they have responded to our calls without failure. As fire protection becomes a more expensive undertaking, the need for additional community support becomes more imperative. This goes beyond public financing. The private sector can play a major role in augmenting local government efforts. Recently, I learned of an organization in the state of Colorado that awards grants and other types of aid to improve the readiness of first responders. Since its inception in 1996, the Colorado EMS Foundation has awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to Colorado-based fire departments and EMS providers, allowing them to purchase state of the art equipment that will help save lives and reduce property damages caused by fires. The Colorado EMS Foundation is primarily funded by one family, the Dixons. They are private citizens committed to a safer Colorado. The Executive Director of the Foundation, Robert W. Dixon, is a paramedic and former volunteer firefighter. His experiences exposed the Dixon family to the problems many fire departments face regarding inadequate equipment, instilling in them a desire to help our domestic defenders. When I hear of stories about private sector initiatives supporting first responders, I want them to be heard by others. I commend the Dixon family for their efforts in Colorado. I hope that others across the country hear of their work and follow their lead. The American fire and EMS services need more people like the Dixons, individuals who realize the challenges facing emergency responders and who are willing to take it upon themselves to make a difference and come to their aid.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The program under consideration here is not a perfect program, but we are not a perfect Union either. One of the ways that we are imperfect is that people have not had real economic opportunity. They have been shut out. If we leave this program in place, people will have the chance to be included and participate. But perhaps even more importantly than what this program does for people is we should oppose the amendment for what it says to people. Do we really believe and are we really prepared to say that enough has been done, that women and people of color and people that have been left out of this process have enough now, that we have gone as far as we can go and have done all that we can do to rectify decades of discrimination in this country? I think the answer to that question is ``absolutely not.'' We have a long way to go. The approval of this amendment would be a step in the wrong direction. The defeat of this amendment is a step in the right direction. I urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from New Jersey, which would end the Transportation Department's efforts to give disadvantaged businesses the opportunity to bid for transportation contracts. The current law promotes economic growth and advances social justice through the Disadvantaged Business program, by giving disadvantaged businesses the chance to compete for up to 10% of federal transportation spending, which would be as much as $20 billion over the next five years. Many small businesses have been unable to participate in federal transportation contracting in the past, including companies owned by minorities, women, people with disabilities, and others. These companies deserve a chance to get started in the process, to get their first contract, and to begin growing and hiring more workers. This is the best way to create jobs and promote justice. The Roukema Amendment would undercut the goals of growing the economy and ensuring justice. This proposal would cut out many of these disadvantaged businesses that deserve a chance to get their foot in the door. The Roukema Amendemnt embraces the rhetoric of affirmative action, but it would abolish the current practice of affirmatively reaching out to help disadvantaged businesses get a fair start. This amendment eliminates a law which guarantees that the government works to include people who have been excluded from a program which builds our economy and builds small businesses. This disadvantaged business law is the only approach that works. It works to build the best roads in the world, and it works to give minorities, women, people with disabilities, and other disadvantaged Americans a chance to compete for contracts. When they win these bids, these companies create jobs for disadvantaged citizens across our country, at the same time they are helping to build the highest-quality highways for our people. It is a grave mistake to think that we can do without it. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the Roukema Amendment and urge my colleague to vote against it.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who contributes so much to the educational issues, and I thank the author of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). I introduced legislation earlier this year which incorporates this same concept, and I frankly would have put more money into this if we had been able to. But I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the leadership of the minority side for supporting this. Here is why this is such a good idea. If one out of every 300 families on welfare in America, one out of every 300, gets a job as a result of this program, as a result of being moved from where they live to where the jobs are, this pays for itself as a result of people leaving the welfare rolls and paying taxes. In other words, the success level for this to be budget-neutral is very, very low. It is a great idea. In my area, United Parcel Company is helping to do a similar thing, where they are moving welfare recipients from Camden, New Jersey, to a UPS terminal at the Philadelphia airport. It works, the Davis amendment works, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this list will be used to keep these troublemakers from interfering with the operations of companies and businesses throughout the country. The problem is, however, these troublemakers are not troublemakers at all. On this list will be working men and women who are no different from the tens of millions of working Americans who have chosen to exercise their right to organize. This bill, therefore, affects not only the ``undercover union agent'' whom the proponents of this bill fear so much. It affects all working Americans by encouraging potential employers to make unsupported, unjustified, and unfair decisions about whom to hire. We as lawmakers have done much to ensure that the hiring of workers is done in a non- discriminatory and fair manner. By passing this bill, we will undo that progress and prompt a return to practices of unwarranted retribution and illegitimate blacklisting. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding this time to me. I also support the amendment, but I do want to speak about how little I think it does to improve the very negative underlying bill. I find it rather ironic that the party of Abraham Lincoln would be pursuing a piece of legislation that has such negative implications for people's individual liberty and autonomy. It is a concern that really has not been brought up yet about this bill, but it is a very practical one, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about it. A few minutes ago, our friends from Pennsylvania and Illinois said that the party who would determine the employee's intent as to primary purpose would be the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. In fact, as a practical matter, the first person who would determine the employee's principal purpose would be the employer. The employer is going to determine what the principal or primary purpose of the employee is. How exactly is the employer going to do that? Is the employer going to speak? I assume the employer is going to interview the employee, and most employees are going to say, my purpose is to do the job well. Then the employer has to start to ask other questions. Is the employer going to ask the spouse of the applicant what the applicant said to his or her spouse? Is the employer going to ask prior employers of the employee further information than that which would be on the normal letter of reference? Is the employer going to go to persons that the applicant may have talked to at the place of religious worship or at a social gathering or political gathering the person may have gone to? I would suggest to my colleagues that the practical implication of this bill is that it opens up an Orwellian can of worms where an employer clearly has the right to ask all kinds of questions about what the employee's motive might be, and that Orwellian can of worms runs into some very real privacy considerations of the applicant or employee. I am sure that Abraham Lincoln, who founded his party in part on the principle of individual liberty and autonomy, would be rather surprised to know that one of the prices now of applying for a job is evidently giving the employer to whom you have applied carte blanche to find out what you think and what you say to people outside the normal job application process. And if this were to become law, which I doubt and hope does not occur, I wonder exactly how this inquiry would be conducted and by whom. It is one more reason, whether any union or not any union, whether in the work force or not in the work force, it is one more reason to oppose this underlying piece of legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and for his compliment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill because of what it does to working people, what it does to working people and what it says to all people. To understand what is wrong with this bill, we have to walk in the shoes of someone who wants a job and needs a job who does not intend to organize a union, who does not intend to do that. If that person is denied that job because sometime in their past they have been a union officer, a union organizer, or even a union member, they have all kinds of rights. They can file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, and many months and many, many dollars later they can get a decision. If they do not like that decision, they can hire an attorney. Many months and many dollars after they have hired an attorney, they can get another decision. After the decision has been made, they can have their attorney file or fight an appeal. Many months and many dollars after they have fought and determined the appeal, they get an outcome. I may not be the expert that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) says on this bill, but I do have some common sense, and I know this, people who are looking for a job cannot afford to wait many months for an answer. They cannot afford the many dollars they would have to pay an attorney. They will not get the job they need because they had the audacity in the past to lead or join a union. That is what this bill does to men and women who need work and are pursuing it legitimately. We should oppose this bill because of why it is being done. This is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion. But I suspect if organized labor had slouched away from the challenge of the 1994 majority and never raised a fight, never tried to assist those of us who fight for working families to win the majority back, we would never be here this afternoon doing this. Because this is not about labor law reform, this is about retribution for people standing up for their rights at the polls and in campaigns across the country. We ought to oppose this bill because of what this bill says. This bill is not worthy of the 1990s, it is worthy of the 1950s, because it does not remind me of the great efforts to write labor law, it reminds me of the McCarthy era in this country, when we had lists of people who could not get work. That is what is going to happen if this bill becomes law. There will be lists of people who are troublemakers, who do not think and act the right way. The list will circulate, because she had the audacity to join a union, or he had the audacity to run for the presidency of a union. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Greek Independence Day, a national day of celebration of Greek democracy. This day marks the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks were finally liberated after year of oppressive treatment and civil rights violations. Their communities were slowly deteriorating schools and churches were being closed down, and Christian and Jewish boys were kidnapped and raised as Moslems to serve the Sultan. I spent eight magnificent days last August in Greece and Cyprus. There is no better way to learn about the troubles of Cyprus and the splendors of Greece than to speak directly with the people who live there. I enjoyed my visit to Athens very much, and learned a great deal about the history of Greece. Greece is one of only three nations in the world allied with the United States in every major international conflict this century. During the early 1900's one in every four Greek males between the ages of 15 and 45 immigrated to the United States. Through their extraordinary compatibility with the people of America, Greek-Americans have made tremendous contributions to the United States. The American Revolution became one of the ideals of the Greeks as they fought for their independence in the 1820's Greek intellectuals translated the American Declaration of Independence and drew from it in drafting their declaration of freedom. In 1953, after Greece's post-World War II struggle against the Communist rebels, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appropriately said. ``. . . Greece asked a favor except the opportunity to stand for those rights which it believed, and it gave to the world an example of battle, a battle that thrilled the hearts of all free men and free women everywhere.'' Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of issues of concern to the Greek- American community, I am proud to recognize this population and their day of pride and freedom. Greek civilization touches our lives as Americans, and enhances the culture and traditions of this great Nation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue the celebration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last month, I attended an event in Deptford Township, New Jersey, honoring Dr. King and his dream. Speaking with the people of Deptford, I was struck by how significant of an impact Dr. King had on all our lives and, in particular, on the lives of our children. Even though Dr. King left this world long before they entered it, America's youth have a deep understanding of what his message says to us today. I would like to share with my colleagues the essays of Krystal Tribbett and Dave Forstrom, two local high school students. Their words do much to inspire us as we continue our progress to realizing Dr. King's dream. ``Fulfilling Dr. King's Dream'' (By Krystal Tribbett) ``I have a dream, that one day, my four little children will grow up in a nation where they are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their characters.'' In the future Martin Luther King's dream will come true, not because biased people will change their points of view, but because people will no longer allow themselves to sit in the back of the bus, or the middle, but will place themselves in the front, to become an intricate element in protesting against bigotry in today's society. Men and women of different denominations, creeds, and colors will transcend the negative comments, stereotypes, and statistics in order to become our leaders. The tormented will focus their attention on improving their status and beating the odds stacked against them in order to better themselves, by helping their families and communities. They will improve the nation by improving themselves. They will fight not through violence, but through intelligence. They will use the power of the gray, gray matter, to place their ethnicity, individuality to a respected, revered level in the world. The many people of the world are recognized in history for various reasons, for being slaves, illegal aliens, drug dealers, etc. They are also known, however, for being renown actors and singers, scientists, doctors, attorneys, and athletes. In these areas people have begun to exhibit themselves as a powerful force that can reshape history. Youths are the key to the accomplishment of Dr. King's dream. They are setting goals to impact the future. Most importantly, the goals of young people focus on disproving various stereotypes, in order to serve as an example to the older generation, as well as the younger one, that they can be more than drug dealers, clerks, or custodians. They want to prove to biased individuals that anyone and everyone can be anything, and all that they want to be, despite obstacles that they have or will encounter. Everybody can make a difference. In the future, great changes are bound to occur in the history of this nation, of this world, because of the remarkable achievements of the people who did not allow ignorance to hold them back. The history makers of tomorrow are recognizing, and taking advantage of the fact that nothing and no one but themselves can keep them from achieving their dreams. True, there will be an element of society who remain ignorant, however adults and juveniles who are knowledgeable and determined will make the difference. The fulfillment of Dr. King's honorable dream is not too far around the corner. Blacks, Whites, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians will put forth their best effort to carry out their plans and become role models that will inform others of prejudice, and how to defeat it. The ambitions are many and the intentions are promising. The great dream of Martin Luther King is going to come true, with the use of the ``gray, lifting up the black.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I hope someday in the near future to vote for a bill designating an appropriate memorial to President Reagan. But the proposal before us this week, to rename Washington National Airport, is not that proposal. I oppose this renaming of the airport, and I want to explain my reasons. This bill violates one of President Reagan's most cherished values: federalism. The federal government should not carry out responsibilities which can be handled by state or local governments. The renaming of Washington National Airport would be in direct opposition to the wishes of the local authority which governs the airport, as well as the surrounding communities and local governments. The airport is not a federal facility, but is run locally and financed by the local taxpayers, who ought to have the say in this matter. This airport is already named for a great President, George Washington. There are other, more appropriate landmarks and facilities that can be named for President Reagan. I support the naming of a new aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan. And I strongly approve of the recent christening of the new federal building in Washington after President Reagan. But we should not act, contrary to the principle of federalism, to name this airport after President Reagan, over the objection of local officials and the people they represent.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to report on the progress of the Department of Education's loan consolidation program. Because of the solid efforts of the Department and EDS, the program is on track to complete all the pending consolidation applications and to resume accepting new applications by December 1, 1997. As of September 15, 1997, EDS had received 142,856 consolidation applications. Of that number, 84,078 were still pending. In less than 2 months, the outstanding inventory has been reduced by 81 percent; only 15,607 applications are still pending. As a result, the number of completed consolidations has increased by 64 percent since mid- September. These updated figures show that the loan consolidation problems no longer exist. The Department's loan consolidation program streamlines the borrowing process, reduces financial costs, and improves access to education for students and their families. The Department and EDS are to be commended for their swift response to the situation and for putting this important program back on track.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, many American workers today earn their living by selling goods and services to customers across the continent or across the globe. Such salespeople increasingly find that their paycheck is determined by how well they produce and how much they sell, because they are paid in part according to a bonus or commission system. Salespeople who can substantially increase their salary by earning more commissions ought to be allowed to work longer hours and perform their jobs more effectively, in order to make more money. Unfortunately, current law keeps them from earing as much as they could. I am proud to join with my colleague, Congressman Harris Fawell, to introduce H.R. 2888, the Sales Incentive Compensation Act. This common- sense legislation will give fear greater flexibility to salespeople and their employees, by allowing salespeople to choose to work harder in order to earn higher commissions. And it ensures security and fairness for all workers, by precluding abuses that would force employees to work longer hours without substantial reward. Our bill provides flexibility to meet the demands of the workplace and the market. Today's customers demand goods and services at different times and in different time zones. Today's information economy allows a more flexible sales force to make sales around the clock. The Sales Incentive Compensation Act gives employees the flexibility to adjust their schedule in order to earn more money in commission, rather than limiting their earning potential. For instance, a working mother may find it easier to make sales calls from home, while the employer benefits from a more productive sales force. In addition, our bill guarantees security and protection for workers. The Sales Incentive Compensation Act ensures that lower earning workers cannot be exploited or denied the protections of time-and-a-half overtime for work beyond a 40-hour week. The bill establishes a stringent test which guarantees that salespeople cannot be exempted from the wage and hour laws unless they receive a substantial minimum salary and are guaranteed the opportunity to earn significant commissions or incentive-based compensation. Employees cannot be exempted from the 40-hour work week unless they meet this test. The Sales Incentive Compensation Act is based on the principles of fairness and opportunity. Under our bill, salespeople must be given the opportunity to continue earning commissions if they choose to work longer hours and are successful in making more sales. The rate of bonus pay for extra sales must be as good, or better, than the rate for the salesperson's minimum sales. Employees would have an incentive to work harder, and employers would be required to pay them a fair commission for each additional sales that they make. Thus, both businesses and salespeople will share in the increased profit and productivity that will be created when H.R. 2888 becomes law. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible and crucial legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the thousands of Cubans who have no voice, for they have no freedom. On Wednesday, November 5, 1997, yet another resolution was passed by the U.N. General Assembly, condemning our country's economic sanctions against the megalomaniacal dictator, Fidel Castro. One hundred forty- three other nations, including our good trading partners from Europe, Canada, and Japan voted in support of Castro and against the United States. What those countries fail to realize is that they are working against the freedom loving people of Cuba. For Americans, Cuba, is in many ways, a family matter for us. Hundreds of thousands of Cuban families have been separated on opposite sides of the Florida Straits for years. Cuban-Americans, refugees really from war, have long dreamed to someday be reunited with family and to see their homeland free once again. Unless strong steps are taken to end the Castro regime, that dream will remain just that--a dream. Standing up to Cuba, standing against Castro and his dictatorship, is the only way to turn those dreams into reality. Using our economic leverage makes it clear to the people of Cuba there is no reconciliation with Fidel Castro, there is no compromise, and it is time to bring the dictatorship to a close. We do this as we did against South Africa with apartheid and as we do today against Iraq. I am filled today more with sorrow than with anger that our allies, our friends, would support the continuation of oppression and tyranny. However, on this most recent vote, I am gratified that we were joined by two distinguished voices for freedom: Israel and Uzbekistan. These two nations have faced and conquered the obstacles that stand in the way of freedom and realize that freedom, and its bounty, is the fundamental human right. Castro has had a wall put up around Cuba for almost 40 years. It is our duty, as the pillar of democracy, to tear down those walls and bring freedom to the people yearning for it. I am reminded of Robert Kennedy's words, which are so appropriate now. ``Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' The walls today stand between the people of Cuba and freedom and were built by Castro. Those walls must come down. America must tear them down. If the United States has to stand alone against Cuba's violent dictatorship, then so be it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues an outstanding public servant and one of New Jersey's finest individuals, Sean F. Dalton. Sean Dalton comes from a long line of distinguished public servants, from his father, Bill Dalton, the former mayor of Glassboro and chairman of the South Jersey Transportation Authority; to his brother, Daniel Dalton, who served with distinction as a State assemblyman and senator and as New Jersey's secretary of state. Sean is an outstanding member of the New Jersey General Assembly. But my reason for praising him today has more to do with his heart than his work as a public servant. Specifically, Sean has dedicated much of his time to helping New Jersey's veterans population. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, New Jersey has among the largest veterans populations in the Nation. The willingness of these veterans to jeopardize their lives for our future goes well beyond bravery, and the least that we as a society can do to repay them is to ensure that their accomplishments are recognized and their civilian years are as enjoyable as possible. Sean Dalton has tirelessly led this effort. He has sponsored legislation to have the State of New Jersey issue a special medal to those citizens who were on active duty during the Vietnam conflict. He has worked with other veterans to ensure that all deserving individuals received their long-overdue medals and other military awards from America's other wars. Of course, Sean Dalton's accomplishments don't begin and end with our veterans community. He has been a tireless advocate for our seniors, for workers, for local homeowners and taxpayers, and for our youngest citizens. In recognition of his remarkable efforts, the Chapel of the Four Chaplains will be awarding Sean Dalton with its Legion of Honor Award on Monday, October 27 at St. John Episcopal Church in Chew's Landing, NJ. This remarkable honor has been given to some of our Nation's most distinguished citizens, from Presidents Truman and Eisenhower to John Cardinal Wright of Pittsburgh and John Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia to Gen. Colin Powell and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf. The Legion of Honor membership is given in recognition of loving service rendered by the recipient to persons regardless of their race or religious faith. No one is more deserving of this outstanding award than Sean Dalton. His family and friends, along with his many admirers, should be extremely proud of his many achievements, and I ask my colleagues to join me in commending and congratulating Sean Dalton on his receipt of the Legion of Honor Award.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for yielding time to me. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people ought to know tonight where their money is going. Some of it is going to provide a loan guarantee for McDonald's to open restaurants in Brazil. Some of it is going to help subsidize the operation of a luxury hotel in Bermuda; or Jamaica, excuse me. Some of it is going to help General Electric Co. build a light bulb factory in Hungary. Mr. Chairman, that is where the American people's money is going tonight, courtesy of OPIC. Where we should go tonight is a yes vote in favor of this amendment. We are going to hear the arguments about the miraculous and wonderful things OPIC does. OPIC makes money because they invest in profitable deals. Mr. Chairman, if the deals are so profitable, then let OPIC proceed as a private firm with private risk and private capital and put their money at risk, not the money of the men and women that we represent. We will hear that OPIC does not cost the taxpayers any money because what OPIC brings in is greater than what it puts out every year. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees. Its analysis is that if we terminated OPIC, over a 5-year period we would save $296 million. Mr. Chairman, OPIC also makes money the way another Federal agency used to make money. In 1987 the head of that Federal agency said that times are bright, good times are ahead, the revenues are rolling in. The head of that agency was the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. He was talking about the savings and loan institutions. The good times ended, our money rolled out, and that agency lost money, the same way OPIC would if its deals go sour. We will hear that OPIC creates lots of jobs. But then we will hear the Congressional Research Service say that there is little or no empirical evidence to support that claim. We will hear that exports for our country will dry up, that we will be unilaterally disarming in the war for exports if we get rid of OPIC. Here is the evidence. In countries that were eligible for OPIC treatment, U.S. firms exported $3.6 billion last year. But in the Peoples Republic of China, ineligible for OPIC treatment, without one nickel of assistance from OPIC, exports were $52 billion without OPIC. Mexico, which is also ineligible for OPIC subsidy, United States exports, $28 billion, without a shred of help from OPIC. The evidence shows the exports do not increase. Finally, we will hear that OPIC is a valuable tool to pursue the foreign policy goals of our country. Mr. Chairman, the foreign policy goals of our country should be decided and executed by us as the duly elected Representatives of the people, and by those who work for the President and the State Department, not by a quasi-public taxpayer- subsidized corporation, which, by the way, has been using its public subsidy this week to lobby us against cutting off its funding. The letters have arrived, the doors have been knocked on, the advertising campaign has begun. For no other reason, for no other reason, our colleagues should support this amendment because we do not like the idea of people we are funding using that funding to lobby us on how to vote. Do the American taxpayer a favor. Support our amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], my friend and colleague, and also the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, for their work on this amendment. This week, our constituents are going to have taxes taken out of their paycheck. And each week we go home for the weekend they ask us, ``Congressman, what did you spend my money on this week? If my colleagues are prepared to tell their constituents that this week they spent their money to help the McDonald's Corp. in Brazil, then oppose our amendment. If my colleagues are prepared to tell their constituents that this week they spent their money to help the General Electric Corp. in Hungary, then oppose our amendment. But if my colleagues believe, as we do, that the time has come to have equity in the way we disperse welfare and to stop corporate welfare, then support our amendment, as so many did in voting to limit OPIC last year.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, there is some brilliant strategy at work here. This legislation which I strongly support has managed to perform the miracle of bringing all different kinds of people together. People who love to see the Government spend more money oppose this legislation because it would stop the spending from going on. People who love to pay for tax cuts by borrowing money and increasing the deficit oppose this legislation because they hold the tax cuts sacrosanct. Those who worship the committee process do not like this legislation because it did not pass through their portals. I with some sorrow predict that we will not get many votes for this legislation when it comes to the floor because all the interests are offended by it. People who like this legislation are those that are in the huge majority of taxpaying Americans who really want to see us do what we purport to be doing here, which is to adopt a balanced budget plan and make it work year in and year out, whether the revenues fall or drop, whether the entitlements rise or fall. This is an idea which will in all likelihood not succeed today, but we will succeed in bringing it back to the floor and succeed in enacting it in the future.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, we have all heard the voices of alarm that we are hearing again today. Those voices are wrong. As the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] said earlier, this bill will not cut Social Security. It will not cut veterans benefits. It will not take well-earned tax reductions away from taxpayers. If Members choose to listen to those voices, I assume that they will have a short-term political gain because they will not be criticized for voting for those things. But we have done enough around here for the last 30 years of making short-term political gains at the expense of the long-term health of the economy of this country. If my colleagues believe in the terms of the balanced budget agreement, then put it into the law. If my colleagues believe it can and will work the way it has been planned by the President and the congressional leadership, then make sure it works by putting it into the law. Our motto around here for the last 30 years has been, ``The check is in the mail.'' Let us do something real this time. Let us make this agreement enforceable and real for the American people. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 23d anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the peaceful, self-governing island of Cyprus. For 23 years, Turkey has tried to make the island its own. It has attempted to do this by installing 80,000 illegal colonists, by maintaining over 30,000 heavily armed troops on the island, and by moving 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. Through 23 years of hardship, the people of Cyprus have held on to a hope for peace and for the return of their island. Their purpose has not been revenge, but negotiation and reconciliation. Here in the House of Representatives, we have the opportunity to help the cause of justice. Several colleagues and I sent a letter recently to the President outlining our concern for the delicate peace process in Cyprus. We wrote welcoming the appointment of Ambassador Holbrooke as Special Emissary for Cyprus, and what we believe a lasting and peaceful solution should look like: a reunited country, with a strong federal system; a democratic constitution which would insure the rights of the minority; and guaranteed property right and free travel. I then went one step further and wrote directly to Ambassador Holbrooke and asked him the following two questions: First, if the Turkish Government fails to negotiate in good faith, what actions, sanctions or otherwise is the United States prepared to take? Second, if the Turkish Government fails to negotiate in good faith, what incentives will the United States provide Turkey, in recognition of this major step forward? While I have not yet received a response to my questions, there is no doubt in my mind that this Congress can have a positive effect on the outcome of peace for the island nation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 388, legislation I have introduced that would cut off all economic and military assistance to Turkey until that country complies with several conditions, including progress toward withdrawal from Cyprus. As saddened as I am by their plight, as dismal as their treatment by a foreign force has been, we should all be inspired by the patience, courage and faith shown by the people of Cyprus. Let us make this the year when the people of Cyprus once again can govern themselves with peace and dignity.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I would say that there is no higher purpose for those who have been called to this House than to stop the practice of borrowing money to run the U.S. Government and sending the bill to our children. I do not doubt for one minute the good intentions of those who put this budget agreement together, but I sure do doubt what might happen as a result of those intentions if we do not have the enforcement language of the Barton-Minge amendment. Here is what it says without it. If Congress spends more than we planned under this agreement, do Members know what happens? Nothing. If the Tax Code does not bring in as much money as we thought it would because of the tax cut, do Members know what happens? Nothing. Without this amendment the deficit will rise, the balanced budget will be in jeopardy, and we will continue the practice we all came here to stop. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and when we get a chance vote for the Barton-Minge amendment when it comes to the floor.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify for the Record my reasons for missing the two recorded votes that took place yesterday, Wednesday, June 18, 1997, on the House floor for H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program Authorization and the approval of the House Journal. I was unfortunately delayed in coming to Washington because I was attending the funeral of a friend, Mr. Andrew H. Aman, Sr.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an individual who has dedicated her life to education. I am speaking of Ms. Jo-Ann Maxwell, who will be retiring on May 22, 1997, after a lifetime of exemplary service. Ms. Maxwell has been involved in education since her graduation from Indiana State Teachers College in 1958. She holds certificates in secondary speech and dramatics, secondary English, secondary education, as well as an elementary certificate. Currently, Ms. Maxwell is using her skills as a basic skills instructor for the upper elementary grades at Erial Elementary School. She has shown a deep commitment to passing along the skills that each student will need to be successful in the future. For her efforts, Ms. Maxwell received the prestigious honor of being selected as the 1986-87 Teacher of the Year. All who have known Ms. Jo-Ann Maxwell, especially those who have benefited from knowledge, are honored by her service to their community. On behalf of all the citizens of New Jersey, I thank and congratulate Ms. Maxwell. We all will miss her remarkable talents.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an individual who has given of himself to make his borough a better place to live. I am speaking of Chief Theodore J. Howarth, Jr., the newly elected State Commander of the American Legion Department of New Jersey. Out State is fortunate to have a leader like Chief Howarth in this important position. Chief Theodore Howarth's dedication to New Jersey and his fellow citizens is exemplary. Chief Howarth is a lifelong resident of Gloucester City. He served in the Navy for two tours in Vietnam, earning the Navy Commendation Ribbon, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the National Defense Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal. In January 1972, Chief Howarth joined the Gloucester City Police Department, where he steadily rose through the ranks. On December 7, 1988, Theodore Howarth became the chief of police of Gloucester City, a position at which he continues to excel. During his memorable 24-year career in Gloucester City, Chief Howarth has accomplished much. He has established a pathbreaking Juvenile Adjudication Program, established numerous community programs in concert with the school system, and community service organizations, promoted a policy of Community Oriented Policing, and has pursued consistent professionalism in a police organization. In addition to his impressive police career, Chief Howarth has shown an deep commitment to bettering himself and his community. While serving in the Gloucester City Police Department, Chief Howarth completed his bachelor of science degree in law and justice. He has served the Policemen's Benevolent Association in all elected and appointed positions. Chief Howarth currently serves as vice president of the Camden County Police Chief's Association, and is active on the State and national levels as well. Chief Howarth has also served the people of Gloucester City through such community organizations as the Jaycees, the Carmen Palmiero (Youth) Basketball League, the Police Athletic League, the Gloucester City Municipal Youth Services Commission, the Gloucester City Celebrations Committee, and the Gloucester City Chamber of Commerce, rising to president of each of these organizations. In addition, Chief Howarth is active in Little League baseball, and serves as vice president of the Gloucester City Lions Club. Through his vigorous community involvement, Chief Howarth has been honored many times, received such awards as Outstanding Citizenship Awards from the Jaycees, Sportsman's A.C., and V.F.W. Post #3620, as well as the New Jersey Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award from both the American Legion Department of New Jersey and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of New Jersey. In addition to his active career and dedication to community service, Chief Theodore Howarth has remained an active participant in the American Legion. He has risen through the ranks, and was elected State Commander of the American Legion Department of New Jersey in 1997. All who know Chief Theodore Howarth are honored by his service to the people of Gloucester City and of New Jersey. I know that Chief Howarth's wife, Candy, and son, Sean, are as proud of his accomplishments as we all are. Chief Howarth's service has been remarkable, and I congratulate and thank him on behalf of all the citizens of New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding time, and I rise in support of his substitute. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that someone listening to this debate today might be awfully confused when they hear virtually everyone on our side say the bill before the House puts the whip in the hands of the employer and takes the choice away from the employee and hears virtually everyone on the other side say exactly the opposite is true. Let me tell my colleagues why I feel so strongly that we are right about this argument. It has to do with the way the underlying bill that we are seeking to amend is drafted. If we have a situation where an employee who always chooses cash, or has always chosen cash in the past, is denied overtime in the future and an employee who always chooses comptime is given overtime in the future, I think it is a fair conclusion that the other employees in that workplace might get the message that if you choose cash you do not get overtime. But if you choose comptime, you do. That effectively takes the choice away from the employee and puts it in the hands of the employer. Our friends on the other side no doubt say that is not what the bill says. The bill says that you have to offer the employee the choice. That is true. That is literally what the bill says. But in practice let me tell my colleagues what I believe would happen. The burden of proof would be on the employee to hire a lawyer, go to court and show that the employer intentionally chose to discriminate or deny overtime to the employee who chose cash rather than comptime. The way you have to meet that burden of proof, with all due respect, is impossible. There is a saying in law that he or she who has the burden of proof loses. In this case it would be the employee who would have that burden of proof. How would you meet the burden of proof? You would have to find a smoking gun. You would have to find a memo or an oral statement from an employer that would say, ``Whatever we do, let's stop offering overtime to people who choose cash rather than comptime.'' Very few employers, first of all, I believe, would coerce their employees. I accept that. But even fewer employers are going to be stupid enough to let such a memo or oral statement be around. Very few people are going to meet this burden of proof. We then have the assertion that an employee can cash out their comptime on demand. That may be what the written piece of paper says, but that is not the reality, Mr. Chairman, because the same person who is persuaded not to choose cash in the first place is very unlikely to go back to an employer and demand cash in the second place. On paper this sure looks like choice, but in the real world it sure looks like coercion. The Miller substitute meets those objections. It would truly put the choice in the hand of the employee and not the employer. It would deal with the situation where an employee has accumulated comptime and the employer goes out of business by not permitting that situation to get out of hand and accrue. If you really want worker choice, support the Miller substitute.