Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Kentucky just said the majority is interested in outcomes. Well, let me tell you what the outcome of the No Child Left Behind Act has been for thousands of schools across America. This law, which has had great potential to create learning opportunities for children, is creating great havoc for the schools of America.

Public educators across the country, who were told that they would receive

more help if they needed it, are receiving lectures from the Department of Education about how to run their schools, mandates from the United States Congress telling them what they must do in their schools, and money that falls $8 billion short of the job that we say needs to be done. We said to these public educators, you must test and evaluate every child, every year, between the third grade and the eighth grade, and you, local taxpayers, should pay for it. That was not the commitment of the No Child Left Behind Act.

They have been told that if your school falls into the category of a school that needs improvement, a definition that has been tortured beyond recognition by the Department of Education in its interpretation of this law, if you fall into such a category, you will get the money for the tutoring programs and the after-school programs and the parent academies that work to improve learning. But the money is not here, because we are $8 billion short.

Governing is choosing, and I would suggest to the majority, here is your choice: You can let the No Child Left Behind Act with all of its flaws stay in place and force upon your constituents and mine local tax increases; or you can find the funds to meet the promise this Congress made to those local school districts and pay for the tests and pay for the mandates and pay for the services that are required.

It is the great dilemma of the majority. The budget resolution it passed does not permit them to do so, because this country's educational future, as is the case with so many other priorities in this country, was squandered on the majority's tax cut so we can have a tax cut tilted toward the very wealthy in Washington. We will see increases on everyone else across the country to pay for the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The right thing to do is to suspend the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act until the money is there to pay for those mandates. Otherwise, when the gentlewoman talks about local flexibility and local educators being able to buy computers and do tutoring programs, the money they would like to have for those computers and those tutoring programs is being spent on the No Child Left Behind Act.

Support the resolution. Enforce the act properly.

Mr. Speaker I would like to include, for the Record, two written statements on the No Child Left Behind Act. The first of these is an opinion piece detailing problems with the implementation of the NCLB, by Ms. Gail Cohen, a leader in the education community in southern New Jersey. The second piece is an opinion piece I wrote highlighting many of the same issues. The implementation of the NCLB Act has become a significant concern to our schools and our communities, and must be addressed immediately by the federal Department of Education.

On the No Child Left Behind Act

(By Gail Cohen)

How did 75% of New Jersey's public high schools-including

some of the highest performing schools in the state-find

themselves on an early warning list for not making ``adequate

yearly progress'' toward certain student achievement

benchmarks? Welcome to public education in the era of the No

Child Left Behind Act--the well-intended but poorly conceived

federal legislation that actually has very little to do with

individual student achievement.

NCLB requires that all students meet proficiency levels on

state tests by 2014. To reach 100% proficiency, states have

set incremental benchmarks to determine Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP). These targets establish the percentage of

students in each school--and the percentage of students in

each of several subgroups within that school--who must score

``proficient'' or higher on state assessments.

No educator could argue with the objective of raising

achievement for all students. That's the focus of every

decision made in good school districts. No educator could

argue with a plan that says student progress should be

assessed and schools should be held accountable for that

progress. In good school districts, assessments are used to

inform instruction and direct professional development.

However, the NCLB pegs the success of a school to the

performance of students in disaggregated subgroups on a

single state-developed standardized test--a test itself which

has been questioned.

The federal government would have us use the industrial

model of stamping out kids on a conveyor and assessing each

in exactly the same way. Even Mother Nature has never

achieved creation of two identical objects in this universe.

All children can learn and, when given the appropriate

supports, will demonstrate growth from year to year. For some

students, measuring that growth may require an assessment

different from the HSPA or other state standardized test. For

example, a state-developed standardized assessment does not

measure the progress of the autistic student who comes to

school in September speaking just a few words and ends the

year speaking complete sentences and developing social

relationships. Has the school failed this student? Ask the

student. What message are we sending to this child? Ask the

parent, or the doctor who predicted the student would

never get this far.

Imagine being a teenager having moved to this country just

over a year ago. Aside from all of the issues associated with

adapting to a new country, culture, school and language, you

are expected to pass the same test as the teenager who has

grown up in the community his whole life. You may be

proficient in mathematics--you may, in fact, excel at it.

Should we expect the student to be fluent enough in the

language after one year to pass the same test as his/her

peers who were born in this country? Could our students pass

these same requirements in another country?

Clearly, the one-size-fits-all approach to assessment, as

mandated by the NCLB, is unfair. Also unfair is the fact that

the law paints an inaccurate picture of public education in

our country. The legislation leaves its implementation

details up to each individual state. So, for example, each

state establishes its own benchmarks for Adequate Yearly

Progress. Each state determines the number of students that

must be in a subgroup in order for that subgroup's results to

be counted. These variations make state-to-state comparisons

nearly impossible.

In New Jersey a sub-group's test results will only count

toward adequate yearly progress if there are 20 or more

students in that group. The schools that are not on the

state's early warning list appear to be mostly smaller

schools with fewer that 20 students in that group. In

Pennsylvania, there have to be 40 students in a sub group to

count.

The reporting requirements of NCLB may cause communities to

point to subgroups of students--our special education

children, our children of poverty, our children of color--and

say, ``You're the reason our schools are failing.''

How lucky we are in Cherry Hill to attract kids from

neighboring urban areas, kids whose families are thrilled

with the educational opportunities that our district

provides. We know that the longer students are in Cherry

Hill, the better they achieve. Under NCLB, after just a year

in our district, those kids are expected to achieve

proficiency, without regard to their background or the growth

they have demonstrated since they arrived.

The intent behind the ``No Child Left Behind'' legislation

is good. However, if legislators and educators are truly

interested in all students achieving, if we are truly

interested in improving education, then we need to assess

individual student progress over time using multiple

measures.

Op-Ed on No Child Left Behind

(By Rep. Robert E. Andrews)

The federal Department of Education is seriously abusing

New Jersey's schools. The Department just released an early

warning list of New Jersey schools that are ``failing''

federal standards, according to the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB). As anyone who lives in South Jersey knows, there is

something seriously wrong with any such list when it includes

top-notch middle schools, such as Haddonfield, Washington

Township, Medford and Evesham.

The No Child Left Behind Act is a law with great potential

to help children. But the Department of Education's

implementation of the law fails to help anyone. There are two

primary reasons for this failure. First, the Education

Department has burdened school districts around the country

with a ``one size fits all approach.'' Local communities know

best how to run their school districts, and they should be

left alone, when successful, to do their jobs.

The second reason is a bias against public schools in some

corners of the Bush Administration. By torturing the intent

of the federal law, the Administration has been able to twist

``objective'' measures of progress into evidence of rapid

decline. In so doing, the Administration has thrown public

schools on the defensive. By making public schools appear

unsuccessful, the Administration creates more rationale, and

more momentum behind their anti-public school, pro-voucher

agenda.

The Department of Education has badly misinterpreted the

law. The Department has made a lot of very good schools look

very bad by insisting that schools test and evaluate children

in programs for special education and English as a Second

Language using the same tests as those taken by mainstream

students. These students' test scores

are included in the overall proficiency standards. We must

help every child realize his or her potential, but these

tests are not appropriate for these students. The law simply

requires states to use appropriate standards for every child.

The Department of Education can, and should, easily make this

correction.

The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to ensure high

standards for our teachers. However, the law was not intended

to interfere with successful state standards, such as we have

in New Jersey. The correct interpretation of the bill, as

intended by Congress, is to allow teachers, in states with

high standards, to continue to be certified by their state.

Again, the Federal Department of Education has wrongly

implementing the law by demanding that our very best teachers

meet a different set of federal standards. At a time of

severe teacher shortages, this policy seems driven by an

anti-public school bias, designed to discourage advancement

in the profession, and to encourage the retirement of our

longest serving public school teachers.

The final problem with the No Child Left Behind Act is

simply one of dollars and cents. When the law was passed, the

Bush Administration agreed to provide adequate funding for

education in exchange for strong accountability laws and

tough standards. But in 2004, the Administration underfunds

our schools by $8 billion, and then plans to impose strict

sanctions on schools that don't meet the strict federal

standards. Without adequate federal resources, South

Jersey will likely experience an upward pressure on local

property taxes, or face a public school system in chaos.

In May, I met with educational leaders from around the

State of New Jersey to discuss the problems of funding and

federal implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Since

then, these problems have become even more evident. I have

called on the Bush Administration to correct these problems

through the regulatory process. If no action is taken by the

Department of Education to fix these problems, I am committed

to correcting these faults through legislation. I have

already spoken with the Chairman of the House Education and

the Workforce Committee, and he has acknowledged the problem.

The No Child Left Behind Act has the potential to help

students around the country. But unless the Department of

Education infuses some badly-needed common sense into its

rules, and unless the Bush Administration provides the money

it has promised to our local schools, too many children will

be left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003, a bill that passed this body last week, but also to express my dismay that a non-controversial, bipartisan provision was stripped from that bill before this House had an opportunity to vote for it. It is my hope that this provision, which would stabilize small business defined benefit pension plans, can be included in any conference report that this House may be asked to consider this year.

The provision, known as Section 415, would have replaced the 30-year Treasury bond rate with a fixed interest rate of 5.5 percent for purposes of the maximum cap on benefits under Internal Revenue Code section 415. In the case of a small business defined benefit plan, the maximum cap on benefits can have an enormous impact on funding, due to the small number of participants. The 30-year Treasury bond rate that business must currently use to calculate funding is extremely volatile, leading to unpredictable funding requirements. For example, just last year between March and September (only 6 months), the 30-year rate fluctuated by almost a full percentage point--96 basis points-- resulting in funding obligations for a benefit that varied by as much as $140,000. That may not be much to a large company, but it is significant to a small business.

The cost of this unpredictability is choking off capital investments, new hires, higher wages, or better health care. The requirement to use an obsolete standard is depriving our economy of desperately needed capital at a time when our businesses and our workers need it most.

The small business provision has bipartisan support both in the House and Senate, it has no impact on current rules for calculating lump sums for rank-and-file participants, and there does not appear to be any substantive objections to its inclusion. So I am dismayed that it would have been taken out of the larger, two year pension fix.

I trust that as this process moves forward--in conference if there is an opportunity--we will be able to reattach this important small business provision to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor local organizations throughout our great nation for their contributions to civic education. Estimates are that State governments have slashed over $11-15 billion from their education budgets this year. At the same time, public opinion surveys indicate that education is at the top of the list of issues of interest to American citizens.

It is at times like this that we are particularly grateful that private sector individuals and organizations contribute to the education of America's youth. One such group is the Committee for Citizen Awareness, a not-for-profit organization that produces award- winning educational videotapes addressing civic subjects. In cooperation with organizations across America, they give these civic videotapes for free to high schools, community colleges,

many libraries and community access cable television stations. Over 30 million students and countless others have viewed these award-winning videos, free of charge.

At this moment in American history, when others are challenging our system of government, it is essential that our citizens understand their country's civic underpinnings. Helping to educate our citizens, particularly our young Americans, about these civic issues is indeed a noble and worthwhile goal. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in showing sincere gratitude to all organizations that have contributed to this effort, including:

The Cooper Health System

Dr. Mamie Howard Golladay, President of Sullivan County

Community College

Elizabeth N. Hamilton, President & CEO of Summit Credit Union

Carole Biggers, Corporate Counsel of Syngenta Crop Protection

Todd Hendricks, General Partner of T. H. Properties

Dale Schumacher, President of Tampa Bay Federal Credit Union

Loy M. Howard, President/CEO of Tanner Health System

Wayne Mansur, President and CEO of Texoma Community Credit

Union

Paul M. Pantozzi, Chairman, President, and CEO of The

Provident Bank

Dr. James A. ``Red'' Duke, Trauma Surgeon of The University

of Texas Health Science Center @ Houston

Stephen P. Dexter, President and CEO of Thomas Memorial

Hospital

Robert B. Tracy, Jr., CEO of TPS Credit Union, Inc.

Dan Kampen, President and CEO of U.S. Central Credit Union

Dr. James Moeser, Chancellor of UNC at Chapel Hill

Dr. Kathryn Martin, Chancellor of University of Minnesota

Duluth

Glen R. Kershner, COO/VP Business Development of Universal 1

Credit Union, Inc.

Michael C. Engel, President and CEO of University of Kentucky

Federal Credit Union

Dr. John D. Stobo, President of University of Texas Medical

Branch at Galveston

Dr. Dan Johnson, President of University of Toledo

Michael F. Ambrose, President and CEO of USAlliance Federal

Credit Union

Diana Dykstra, President and CEO of Vandenberg Federal Credit

Union

Albert G. Duff, Board of Directors of Ventura County Credit

Union

Dr. Bryan K. Blanchard, President of Vincennes University

Dr. Gary S. Kaplan, Chairman and CEO of Virginia Mason

Medical Center

Nancy Farber, CEO of Washington Township Health Care District

Dr. Christine Sobek, President of Waubonsee Community College

Dr. Michael H. Gerwitz, Director of Pediatrics of Westchester

Medical Center

F. Nicholas Jacobs, President of Windber Medical Center

Dr. Harold L. Martin, Sr., Chancellor of Winston-Salem State

University

Dr. Robert Lowdermilk, President of Wood College

Douglas A. Fecher, President and CEO of Wright-Patt Credit

Union

Dr. Anthony Parker, President of Albany Technical College

Lawrence E. Dewey, CEO of Allison Transmission Division

General Motors

Jude Thompson, Vice President and General Manager of Anthem

Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Dennis Smith, Associate Executive Director of Arthur G. James

Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute

Dr. William Frame, President of Augsburg College

Calvin E. Bellamy, Chairman of Bank Calumet

Joel Allison, President and CEO of Baylor Health Care System

Patrick Magoon, President and CEO of Children's Memorial

Hospital

Jeffery L. March, President and CEO of Citadel Federal Credit

Union

Dr. Karen A. Nicodemus, President of Cochise College

Randy Segler, CEO of Comanche County Memorial Hospital

Keith Spivey, Vice President of Branch Operations of EECU

Denise Floyd, President/CEO of Fort Sill Federal Credit Union

John N. Kastanis, President and CEO of Hospital for Joint

Diseases

R. Michael Barry, FACHE, Chief Executive Officer of Jupiter

Medical Center

Jean G. Leon, RNMPA, Executive Director of Kings County

Hospital Center

Jean M. Yokum, President and CEO of Langley Federal Credit

Union

Todd L. Swims, President & CEO of Leaders Credit Union

Jose R. Sanchez, CSW, ACSW, Senior Vice President of Lincoln

Medical & Mental Health Center

Parker H. Petit, Chairman, President and CEO of Matria

Healthcare, Inc.

Thomas Rozek, President and CEO of Miami Children's Hospital

Gregory K. Smith, President of Mountain State Blue Cross Blue

Shield

Kevin A. Johnson, CEO of Mountain View Hospital

Laurence C. Hinsdale, President and CEO of NorthEast Medical

Center

Ed Piper, Ph.D., CEO of Onslow Memorial Hospital

Niels Vernegaard, President/CEO of Parkridge Medical Center,

Inc.

Thomas F. Schutte, President of Pratt Institute

Neil DeFeo, Chairman, President, and CEO of Remington

Products Company LLC

Timothy G. Rupert, President & CEO of RTI International

Metals, Inc.

James W. Henderson, Division Manager of RTI International

Metals, Inc.

Wallace Strickland, President and CEO of Rush Foundation

Hospital

Fred Fraizer, President and CEO of Saint Mary's Hospital

Bob Peebles, CAO of Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers

Dr. Steven Gamer, Chief Medical Officer of Saint Vincent

Catholic Medical Centers

Thom Clark, President and CEO of Saints Memorial Medical

Center

Bruce Rampage, President of St. Anthony Memorial Health

Centers

George Winn, President and CEO of St. Elizabeth Health

Services

Colleen L. Kannaday, President of St. Francis Hospital &

Health Center

Andrew S. Passeri, Ph.D., President and CEO of Adolescent

Medicine of Staten Island University Hospital

April C. Lee, M.D., Director of Adolescent Medicine of Staten

Island University Hospital

Catherine Ann Paura, CEO of The National Research Group, Inc.

Dr. Catherine Bannerman, Medical Director, Quality

Improvement of Torrance Memorial Medical Center

Arlene Rak, President of UHHS/Bedford Medical Center

Bruce L. Barnett, President and CEO of Education of Vantage

Credit Union

Dr. Peter C. Mehas, Superintendent, Fresno County Department

of Education of Vantage Credit Union

Richard Davis, Esquire, Partner of Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP

Charles M. O'Brien, Jr., President and CEO of West Penn

Allegheny Health System

Richard Brvenik, President and CEO of Windham Community

Memorial Hospital

Dr. J.P. (Jack) London, Chairman, President and CEO of CACI

International Inc.

Bernard W. Dan, President and CEO of Chicago Board of Trade

Dr. Michael Schwartz, President of Cleveland State University

K. Peter Maneri, Vice President of Corporate Communications

of Computer Sciences Corporation

Gary J. Holt, President of Delta School of Business &

Technology

George L. Kerns, President and CEO of Digex Incorporated

Dr. David G. Carter, President of Eastern Connecticut State

University

Joe Shearin, President and CEO of Eastern Virginia

Bankshares, Inc.

J.A. Lacy, President and CEO of FinishMaster, Inc.

Jim Sartain, President and CEO of FirstCity Financial

Corporation

S. Dale High, President of High Industries

Daniel J. Wetta, CEO of John Randolph Medical Center

Dr. Betty Siegel, President of Kennesaw State University

Dr. F. Javier Cevallos, President of Kutztown University of

Pennsylvania

Charles W. Thomas, President and CEO of Mid-Atlantic Federal

Credit Union

Mark Griffin, Executive Vice President of Nishikawa Standard

Company

Dr. David Sam, President, North Harris College of North

Harris Montgomery Community College District

Charles Florio, Ph.D., President of Northeast Texas Community

College

Gary Wehrle, President and CEO of Pacific Crest Bank

Dr. Paul J. McCarthy, President of Prairie State College

Barbara Berghoff, President and CEO of Professional Federal

Credit Union

Dr. John Waddell, President of St. Paul's College

Michael T. Dan, Chairman, President and CEO of The Pittston

Company W.R. Timken Jr., Chairman and CEO of The Timken

Company

Marv Athey, CEO/General Manager of Trico Electric Cooperative

Bobbie Booker, Chairwoman of Tulsa Teachers Credit Union

Bill Sterner, President/CEO of U of C Federal Credit Union

Dr. Don Huff, President of Weatherford College

Bob Worth, Bay Area Region President of Wells Fargo & Company

Glen F. Post, President, Chairman and CEO of CenturyTel

David R. Anderson, President and COO of American Family

Insurance

Robert S. Curtis, President and CEO of Ball Memorial Hospital

Frank V. Murphy, President and CEO of BayCare Health System

William Longfield, Chairman and CEO of C.R. Bard, Inc.

Dr. Antoinette Iadarola, President of Cabrini College

Deborah H. Trotter, President and CEO of Charlotte Fire

Department Credit Union

David Macoubrie, Esquire of Cleaveland, Macoubrie & Cox

John A. Calderone, Ph.D. of Corona Regional Medical Center

Paul Dell Uomo, CEO of Covenant Health Care System, Inc.

Allan G. Komarek, Executive Director of Delano Regional

Medical Center

Dr. Bryant Cureton, President of Elmhurst College

Kevin C. Martin, President & CEO of EMH Regional Healthcare

System

Lauren Rock, COO of Euclid Hospital

Jim Tadvick, Senior Vice President of Farmers State Bank

Gary Duncan, President and CEO of Freeman Health Systems

George Irwin, President and CEO of Great Falls Bank a.k.a

Greater Community Bank

Carl J. Sorgatz, President of Hawthorne Credit Union

Michael D. Means, FACHE, President and CEO of Health First

Dr. Johnathan M. Astroth, President of Heartland Community

College

Norman F. Mitry, President and CEO of Heritage Valley Health

System

Thomas R. Martin, Senior Vice President of ITT Industries

Father Edward Glynn, S.J., President of John Carroll

University

Steven Kazan, Managing Partner of Kazan McClain Edises Simon

& Abrams.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lantos amendment. The issue here is bringing these young men and women home from Iraq when their mission is done as quickly as possible, as safely as possible, as many of them as possible. And that requires the job of reconstructing Iraq to get done.

But the issue of whether there will be reconstruction is not a grant versus a loan. It is who is going to borrow the money to finish the reconstruction. The choice before us is whether the Iraqi people borrow the money and at the right time repay that money out of the proceeds from their $7 trillion worth of oil assets or whether the children of the United States repay the loan. The question is not a grant versus a loan. It is a loan owed by the citizens of Iraq or a loan owed by the citizens of the United States.

This proposal takes the right approach. It says when the time is right, when the reconstruction will justify such an expenditure, this reconstruction should be in a loan taken out by the Iraqi people. It is the right way to bring the young men and women home safely from Iraq.

I urge my colleagues, most especially those who spoke in favor of the earlier amendment by the gentleman from Indiana, to vote ``yes'' on the Obey-Lantos amendment.

Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today in recognition of the 43rd anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus. On October 1, 1960, Cyprus broke free from 80 years of British colonial rule to become its own independent Republic. Despite the hardships that the people of Cyprus have had to endure over the past four decades, they now have one of the most vibrant economies in all of Europe, and remain committed to the core principles enshrined in the Cyprus Constitution that guarantee basic rights and freedoms to both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

Over the past year, the people of Cyprus have had much to celebrate. The Republic was formally admitted into the European Union, the so- called Green Line that separates the southern, government-controlled portion of the island from the northern occupied territory was partially opened so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could explore the entirety of their homeland for the first time in nearly thirty years, and the Greek-Cypriots created and implemented a package of measures designed to assist their compatriots from the north in the areas of education, employment, healthcare, and trade.

However, despite each of these positive advancements in the divided Republic, reunification of the island has yet to occur. Due to the obdurate stance of the Turkish-Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, negotiations have stalled and the United Nations has ceased its efforts to bring the two sides to an agreement. At this crucial juncture, it is absolutely imperative that the United States government continues to show support for reunification of Cyprus. Fueled by international support, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots will continue their calls for reunification, and the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot leadership may be persuaded to reconsider their positions.

In an effort to advance the peace process in Cyprus, I have introduced a bill, H. Res. 320, which calls for the removal of Turkish troops from the island. Reunification negotiations would be greatly facilitated by demilitarization of the area, as this current threat of violence is certainly not conducive to a peaceful process. I strongly urge each of my colleagues to cosponsor this important resolution. In addition, I ask that my colleagues join me in calling upon the Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee to work in conference to ensure that Cyprus receives funding at the $15 million level as it has in past fiscal years. US funding for Cyprus is used primarily for bicommunal programs that aim to encourage cooperation between the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus. The continuation of these worthwhile programs is absolutely essential to the reunification process, and, because of this, US funding is needed now more than ever.

As the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus celebrate the 43rd anniversary of their nation's

independence, I remain hopeful that the coming year will bring further advancements towards the reunification that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots have desired for decades.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to take issue with report language included in H.R. 2557, the Water Resources and Development Act that endorses the Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project. Although the report language admits that ``close scrutiny revealed that the projected benefits of the project might not exceed the projected costs,'' it goes on to say that ``notwithstanding mathematical errors made by the Corps in its original economic analysis, further analysis has demonstrated that the project remains economically justified and the project is continuing.'' This defies all logic and much evidence to the contrary.

The Delaware River dredging project remains a boondoggle. This ill- advised project continues to undergo tremendous scrutiny that raises more questions than it answers. In June of 2002 the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the Army Corps of Engineers grossly misrepresented the costs and benefits of the project. The GAO has determined that the economic analysis provided for this project contained a number of ``material errors,'' miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and used significantly outdated information.'' Based on the GAO findings, the benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is .49 to 1.

Last fall the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection revoked the Army Corps of Engineers' coastal zone permit for this project. A few months later, during the 2002 Christmas holiday, the Army Corps of Engineers released its ``Comprehensive Economic Reanalysis.'' This report represents an attempt by the Army Corps of Engineers to rework the benefit to cost ratio using a significantly lower discount rate than they have used in all prior cost analysis of the project, a possible violation of their own policy. Additionally, there remain concerns that the benefits of the project continue to be overstated.

A July 14, 2003 report by Dr. Robert Stearns, a former high-ranking Army Corps of Engineers official, says the project will lose money. The report says the Army Corps of Engineers' reanalysis, ``does not address the

outstanding issues or the questions raised regarding the project. In fact, the reanalysis raises more questions about his project--questions raised by the independent review panel, questions regarding the process, and questions about the data and models used to justify the project.'' Dr. Stearns estimated the project will lose between 50 cents and 25 cents for every dollar the project costs, and could easily fail to meet the cost-benefit test if even one major assertion does not occur.

I will list just a few of the many problems in the Army Corps of Engineers' reanalysis. One, the Army Corps of Engineers has still not calculated the dramatically higher expense of alternatives to disposing spoils along the river in South Jersey. Second, Army Corps of Engineers economists selectively discounted negative reactions from refiners, who are to be the project's prime beneficiaries by being able to bring tankers up river more fully laden with oil. Third, they used an ``inappropriately low'' discount rate, in calculating the benefits. And fourth, the analysis failed to account for assertions by Maritrans, a company that offloads oil from tankers onto barges, that the project likely will not reduce the number of barges it needs.

From an environmental standpoint, there continue to be many questions about the impact on water quality, dredge spoil disposal, and wildlife and aquatic life. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently expressed concerns that contaminants in the Delaware River could adversely affect the bald eagle or peregrine falcon population. There remain serious concerns about whether the Army Corps of Engineers has fulfilled the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is of critical concern considering that much of the project falls in a portion of New Jersey that is in severe non-attainment for ozone.

On September 11, 2003, in his Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1424, the FY04 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, President Bush offered more harsh words for this project. The statement expresses concern ``that the bill includes excessive funding for studies and design of potential new projects, which would add to the backlog and could unrealistically raise sponsor expectations for near- term construction starts.'' The President further objects to the appropriation of ``over $150 million to other work that raises policy concerns, such as directing funds for construction for the Delaware River Main Channel'' project.

Mr. Chairman, the Delaware River dredging project is not economically justified and should not move forward.

Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today in recognition of Ms. Wanda Ryan who has taught for 40 years with perfect attendance at the George Washington School located in Camden, New Jersey, in my District. Ms. Ryan is a shining example of what educators of today should be.

Ms. Ryan had only one leave of absence to give birth, 28 years ago, to her daughter. She went home from work one day and called her doctor with labor pains. The doctor admitted her to the hospital that evening and she gave birth to her daughter. She took a six week maternity leave of absence.

Barring the birth of her daughter, Ms. Ryan has not missed a day of school in her 40 years of teaching 1st grade at the George Washington School. Ms. Ryan has acted as a teacher-mentor over the years, providing wisdom and knowledge to share with her fellow educators. For Mr. Malcolm Adler, Principal at George Washington, Ms. Ryan serves as an exemplar through which he instills the values of dedication and service in new teachers.

There are no plans for retirement in Ms. Ryan's future. Her continued passion and dedication have recently earned her outstanding evaluations from her supervisor and Principal. Ms. Ryan is also well respected by her colleagues at George Washington who last year voted her ``Teacher of the Year.''

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Wanda Ryan on her dedicated service to the public school system, the George Washington School, the City of Camden, and the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend and congratulate the gentlemen from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), (Mr. Spratt), (Mr. Clyburn), (Mr. DeMint), (Mr. Brown), and my friend (Mr. Wilson) for their authorship and sponsorship of this resolution. I can understand why the South Carolina delegation is so justifiably proud of the young men who have achieved so much on the links.

Among the very most important classrooms, teaching places in our system of our higher education, is the field of athletic competition. There is a reason why we want to encourage colleges and universities around our country to continue educating young men

and women on playing fields; and the achievements of the young men of the Clemson University men's golf team are an example of that principle.

I must say parenthetically one of the issues that I am proud of is my alma mater, which did not win the NCAA golf tournament, Bucknell University, was recently noted for graduating 100 percent of its student athletes who participate in NCAA sports, and that is an aspiration that I know is shared around the country.

These young men of Clemson and these young Tigers had an extraordinary year amidst extraordinarily difficult competition. I am told that they finished the season with a record of 128 wins, eight losses and three draws, or three ties, against opponents ranked in the top 25 teams in the country. So when they took on the very finest competition there was, they won 93 percent of the matches, which is really an astonishingly good record. I wish that I was right 93 percent of the time in the things that I do here in doing my job.

We also want to commend the Oklahoma State University Cowboys who were in second place in the tournament. My understanding is that the tournament took place on their home course, and I think that adds special luster to the achievement of the young men from Clemson because when one is playing against competition that is used to playing on that course day in and day out, it is an advantage for the home team that the Clemson team was able to overcome.

It is my understanding that each of the Tigers players who participated in the NCAA championship are native-born South Carolinians. That must be a source of great pride for the schools and the coaches and families of the State of South Carolina for which we congratulate those schools and coaches and families.

Finally, it is my understanding that players D.J. Trahan, Jack Ferguson, and Matt Hendrix were all honored as All-Americans in the 2002-2003 season. To have three All-Americans on one team in any sport is quite an achievement; and I know that Head Coach Larry Penley, who himself was honored as the Golf Coaches Association of America's Dave Williams Award winner as Coach of the Year, should be justifiably proud.

This morning, as we speak, there are young Americans who are in science labs and lecture halls and technology centers and study areas, all in campuses all around our country, and we commend them for that; but we also recognize that one of the most important places to learn about life and about the principles of life is on the field of battle and athletic competitions. It is obvious Clemson University should be very proud of these young men.

I also add one thing parenthetically now to inject a controversial topic for those of us, and I mean those of us on both sides of the aisle who so strongly support title IX and support equal athletic opportunities for young men and women. This is one example of how we do not have to choose between broader opportunities for all athletes and broader opportunities for some. One of the concerns about title IX is that nonrevenue-producing sports on the men's side, like golf, which really does not produce revenue, would be jeopardized if we have a strong and robust title IX. Well, we have a strong and robust title IX. We are pleased we are going to keep this, and I think this is one more example of how we can have men and women excel in the field of athletic competition.

So I congratulate Clemson University, and all of their alumni and students and followers must be very, very proud of these young men who have won such an esteemed championship.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that very much. We like to keep the smart ones in the State, but we let a few of them go to South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply congratulate our colleagues from South Carolina and to urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 29th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus, which occurred on July 20, 1974. It is my firm

hope that these Turkish occupying forces, which are still stationed in the northern third of the island, will soon be withdrawn, thus allowing Greek and Turkish Cypriot compatriots to live in peace and unity in the absence of this needless military presence.

For the past 29 years, Cyprus has been a nation divided. Despite the strong desires of Greek Cypriots to return to the homes that they have been barred from since the initial invasion, and the expressed desires of an overwhelming majority of Turkish Cypriots to reunify the island so that all Cypriots can enjoy the benefits of EU membership, the Republic of Cyprus remains torn. There have been recent advancements, such as the signing of the EU Accession Treaty, the partial opening of the Green Line, and the package of measures that was designed and implemented by the Greek Cypriots with the intention of assisting their Turkish-Cypriot neighbors, but none of this has led to the ultimate goal, which is the peaceful reunification of the island. The United Nations, under the leadership of Secretary General Kofi Annan, made a sincere effort at encouraging negotiations between the two sides prior to the signing of the EU Accession Treaty, but the obdurate leader of the Turkish-Cypriots, Rauf Denktash, failed to cooperate. Thus, the division remains.

The failure to reunify the island is certainly not due to a lack of interest shown by the people of Cyprus. Compelled by desires to return to the lands they have been evicted from since the Turkish invasion of 1974, Greek-Cypriots continue to support efforts to reach a settlement through negotiations. Likewise, Turkish-Cypriots have come out in great numbers to demonstrate against their leader's negative approach in hopes of someday reuniting their country and gaining all of the benefits that come with EU membership. Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is vitally important for the United States government to continue its strong support and encouragement of the Cypriot community as they continue their push towards reunification.

I recently introduced a resolution into the House, H. Res. 320, which calls for the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish troops of occupation from the Republic of Cyprus. Given the recent advancements that have been made, I feel that the removal of occupational forces would be an appropriate and meaningful step to continue the momentum towards reunification of the island. With over 30,000 troops currently stationed in Cyprus, the island is one of the most militarized countries in the world, and this is clearly not conducive to peaceful negotiations. I strongly urge each of my colleagues in the House to join me in support of this positive step, and to cosponsor this resolution.

It has been 29 long years since the Republic of Cyprus was first divided by the illegal occupation of Turkish military forces. For 29 years Greek-Cypriots have been barred from the northern portion of their homeland, and Turkish-Cypriots have lived through economic hardships under an illegitimate government. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the time has come for the Republic of Cyprus to be reunified, and I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in support of all efforts towards this end.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman, and the ranking member as well, for their gracious cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the House conferees on this bill work to include language in the conference report that addresses concerns I have about a Superfund site in my district, the Gloucester Environmental Management Services, or GEMS, landfill. Specifically, I request that report language direct the Inspector General of the EPA to conduct an investigation into all financial transactions, including revenue and spending, by the GEMS Trust, a collection of responsible parties who are required to conduct the remediation of this highly polluted landfill. I am concerned about

how the trust has financed its actions so far and have reason to believe that the trust has not seriously considered all viable remediation options.

Mr. Chairman, 38,000 of my constituents live within a 3-mile radius of this landfill, some as close as 300 feet. We owe it to them to choose the safest and most environmentally sound remediation method, not simply the cheapest. The responsible parties should not get away with a Band-Aid solution to a major environmental hazard. I seek this Inspector General investigation because I fear that the EPA may be endorsing a treatment method that does not sufficiently protect the health of my community.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, we support Head Start, and we support constructive changes to Head Start. We must oppose this bill because of two very destructive changes. The majority says there are 600,000 children eligible for Head Start who, today, do not get Head Start. They do change that. They increase the number of children eligible who will not get funded. About 10,000 more children by the end of this bill who are eligible for Head Start will not be.

The second change is even more odious. There is an understanding in this country that if a church or religious organization runs a preschool program and someone who is not a member of that religious organization comes and applies for a teaching job to teach mathematics or reading or other skills that under present law they cannot deny that person a job because they do not go to their church or their religious organization. This bill changes that law. It violates that principle. It is wrong. It is divisive. It is destructive. It is unconstitutional.

There are a lot of good reasons to oppose this bill; but ripping us asunder,

giving employers the right not to hire people because of where they worship is just plain wrong, and so is this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could engage the chairman of the subcommittee on the firearm issue.

I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who are co- chairs of the Hellenic Caucus, for their leadership and interest in this issue and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for their interest.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that the House conferees on the foreign operations appropriations work to include language in the conference report regarding the recent article 98 agreement between the United States and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

As my colleagues may be aware, the Former Yugoslav Republic was allowed to sign this agreement as Macedonia, which directly violates United States policy regarding use of that nomenclature. Currently, FYROM and Greece are involved in negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations regarding usage of the name ``Macedonia,'' and the United States has said it will recognize FYROM only as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia while these negotiations are ongoing.

Despite this, the State Department allowed FYROM to sign the article 98 agreement as Macedonia, thus showing utter disregard for our Greek allies. While I certainly understand that this important agreement which ensures that Americans will not be brought before the International Criminal Court by FYROM is designed to protect American citizens and members of the U.S. Armed Forces, I find it inexcusable that we obtained the signature of FYROM at the expense of our friends in Greece.

It is my view that the name ``Macedonia'' properly belongs to Greek culture and, therefore, should not be used by any other country. Greek Macedonia is one of the oldest civilizations known to man, and the history of this name should be recognized and respected.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that language be included in the conference report on foreign operations which states that the State Department should not have allowed the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to sign the article 98 agreement as Macedonia. Further, this language should affirm that it is the United States policy for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be referred to only as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and this policy should be observed in all future relations between the United States and FYROM. In this manner, we can ensure that the culture of our Greek allies is never disrespected in this way again.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much for his leadership and his work on this issue; and I know how good his word is, and I appreciate that. I also thank the ranking member for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the recent passage of my amendment regarding the security of Taiwan, which was part of the en bloc amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The passage of this amendment shows strong Congressional support for the safety and welfare of the citizens of Taiwan, and sends a message to the People's Republic of China that the use of force, and even the threat of the use of force, against Taiwan will not be tolerated.

In the past two decades, Taiwan has undergone a remarkable transformation from a one party, martial law dictatorship to a full- fledged democracy that respects human rights and human freedoms. However, Taiwan's democracy faces a serious military threat from the People's Republic of China. The PRC regards Taiwan as a renegade province, despite the fact that it has never exercised control over the island. They continue to openly entertain the use of force against Taiwan, thereby jeopardizing the stability of the entire Asian Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, as one of the leading democracies in the world, it is the duty of the American government to protect Taiwan from the PRC's threats to its democratic system of governance.

Through this amendment, the United States Congress is expressing its grave concern regarding the People's Republic of China's deployment of hundreds of ballistic missiles directed towards Taiwan. The provision calls upon the President of the United States to direct all appropriate U.S. officials to raise these concerns with PRC officials, and to seek renunciation from the leaders of the PRC of any threat or use of force against Taiwan. In addition, it calls upon the President of the United States to authorize the sale of the Aegis missile defense system to Taiwan if China refuses to dismantle the missiles in question. Finally, the provision reaffirms that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully, and with the expressed consent of the Taiwanese people,

I wish to thank my colleagues in the House for their expressed support of this most important provision. Only by defending the democracies that currently exist throughout the world can we actively promote the spread of democratic ideals. I would ask that my colleagues continue to keep a watchful eye on the PRC's treatment of Taiwan, and remain vigilant in their support for the Taiwanese people and their quest for safety, security, and freedom.

Offered By: Mr. Andrews

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

limitation on assistance for any country that represents itself as

macedonia