Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for votes in the House of Representatives between April 16th and 18th. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 152 for H.R. 3001, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 153 for H.R. 4040, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 154 for H. Res. 614, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 155 for H. Res. 614, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 156 for H. Res. 614, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 157 for H.R. 1815, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 158 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 159 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 160 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 161 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 162 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 163 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 164 for H.R. 4089, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 165 for H. Res. 619, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 166 for H. Res. 619, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 167 approving the Journal, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 168 for H.R. 4348, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 169 for H.R. 4348, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall No. 170 for H.R. 4348, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall No. 171 for H.R. 2453, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act. Since the end of World War II, the United States and Taiwan have fostered a close relationship that has been of enormous strategic and economic benefit to both countries. When the United States shifted diplomatic relations from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China in January 1979, Congress moved quickly to pass the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to ensure that the United States would continue its robust engagement with Taiwan in the areas of commerce, culture, and security cooperation. With President Carter's signature on April 10, 1979, this important and lasting piece of legislation became the Law of the Land and served as the statutory basis for U.S.-Taiwan relations going forward. After 33 years, the TRA still stands as a model of congressional leadership in the history of our foreign relation, and, together with the 1982 ``Six Assurances,'' it remains the cornerstone of a very mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Taiwan. Through three decades marked by momentous social, economic, and political transformations, Taiwan has remained a trusted ally of the United States that now shares with us the ideals of freedom, democracy and self-determination. The foresight of the TRA's drafters in providing that ``the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services . . . to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability,'' and affirming ``the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan'' as explicit objectives of the United States, has contributed in large measure to make Taiwan what it is today--a vibrant, open society governed by democratic institutions. Though the people of Taiwan now enjoy fundamental human rights and civil liberties, they continue to live day after day under the ominous shadow cast by over 1400 short and medium-range ballistic missiles that the People's Republic of China (PRC) has aimed at them. The PRC persists in claiming Taiwan as a `renegade province,' refusing to renounce the use of force to prevent formal de jure independence, even codifying its right to military action via passage of the so-called ``Anti-Secession Law'' on March 14, 2005. The United States Congress strongly condemned the ``Anti-Secession Law'' in House Concurrent Resolution 98, passed on March 16, 2005. The TRA affirmed that the United States' decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China was based on the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be determined by peaceful means. Furthermore, it stipulates that it is the policy of the United States ``to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means . . . a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' The unambiguous and principled stance contained in these provisions has been instrumental to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait for more than thirty years, in spite of the growing military threat posed by the PRC. I therefore invite my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 33rd anniversary of the TRA, to further underline our unwavering commitment to the TRA and our support for the strong and deepening relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Eugene Chin Yu, the 24th president of the Federation of Korean Associations. Mr. Yu has dedicated his time and energy to representing Korean Americans on the local, regional, and national level for his entire adult life. Starting as a young man, Mr. Yu has steadily risen in prominence as he championed the causes of his fellow Korean Americans. As president of the Federation of Korean Associations, Mr. Yu continues his diligent work ensuring the success of Korean culture in America. Mr. Yu also serves the greater community as a leader and a role model. Having served in the United States Army, Mr. Yu embodies the virtue of defending the freedom of our great nation. As a former Georgia State Trooper, Mr. Yu was committed to protecting the safety of his community. And as a successful business owner, Mr. Yu shows us that with hard work and dedication, anything is achievable in America. Mr. Speaker, Eugene Chin Yu's legacy as a community leader is well recognized and deserving of our honor. I join the Korean American community of Southern New Jersey in honoring Mr. Yu and his many great accomplishments.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Commander Rob Selko for his service to our great nation. For much of his life, Commander Selko proudly, faithfully and honorably served this country. Born and raised near Philadelphia, Commander Selko attended The Pennsylvania State University on the Navy Reserve Officer Training, NROTC, scholarship. After graduating with a degree in Chemical Engineering Commander Selko was commissioned as an Ensign and ordered to NAS Pensacola to commence training as a Naval Flight Officer, NFO. Following his NFO training he was ordered to VF 101 for Fleet F 14A Tomcat Radar Intercept Officer training at NAS Oceana. Commander Selko was then assigned to VF 33 where he completed a North Atlantic and a Mediterranean Sea deployment on board USS America (CV 66), amassing over 750 hours and 200 arrested landings in the F 14A Tomcat. In 1994, Commander Selko joined the Navy Reserve and was re- designated as an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer. In February 2006, he was assigned to NAS Lakehurst, New Jersey as Officer in Charge and tasked with leading the Navy's first unit involved in airships in over forty years. His unit deployed to NAS Key West, FL for joint operations with the U.S. Coast Guard, marking the first airship operations involving the U.S. Navy since 1962. Unfortunately, late in 2010, Commander Selko was diagnosed with leukemia. He spent most of 2011 in treatment and recovering from his illness. Commander Selko currently resides at 5 Glen Burnie Court, Sicklerville, New Jersey and after 28 years of faithful and honorable service will be retiring on June 23, 2012. He is married to Christine Selko of Pennsauken, and they have raised four children together in New Jersey. It is important that we take the time on this day to remember and reflect on Commander Selko's deep commitment to inspiring and touching the lives of those around him in his service to this country. May he be remembered as such, and may we continue to carry on his legacy in our hearts as we walk through life.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there's been an understanding in our country for a very long time that if you work as hard as you can your whole life and you follow the rules, that one of the things that you'll get as part of this American Dream is a secure retirement; that you ought to be able to spend the years after you work loving your grandchildren, pursuing your hobbies, doing the things in life that you love and enjoy. Essential to that part of the American Dream is the Medicare guarantee, because here's what it really says. If you get sick and you need help, you get the help that you need as determined by you and your doctor and your family, and you pay your fair share in premiums and copays, but there's no insurance bureaucracy to run through. There's no approval you've got to get. If your cardiologist says you need a certain procedure and you think that you want to do it, you do it, and Medicare pays the bill. This is a guarantee, and the reason it's needed is that you can't make a whole lot of profit off of insuring older and sicker people. So since 1965, this Medicare guarantee has been a part of the promise that we've made to American seniors. This budget violates that promise because what it says is a substantial number of people, beginning with those under 55, will not be in Medicare. They'll be in a system run by the insurance companies of this country, and the decision will shift from people and their doctors to insurance companies. Now, the other side will say, Well, it's going to be voluntary. Well, here's what, in all likelihood, is going to happen. The wealthier, healthier people will sign up for the voluntary system, and the poorer, older, sicker people will stay in regular Medicare. The resources will diminish, the care will dwindle, and Medicare will wither and die on the vine.

Mr. ANDREWS. This obviously is a good faith and legitimate philosophical difference. But when it comes to the termination of the Medicare guarantee, when it comes to jeopardizing and violating this covenant with the people who built this country, we think that's the wrong thing to do. And it's especially wrong when the savings--so-called savings--from this approach will finance yet another tax break for the wealthiest and most prosperous people in our country. These are priorities we'll debate on this floor in good faith. We think they're the wrong priorities. We urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I think there's a consensus in America that we have to reduce our deficit. Most it of should be by cutting spending, and some of it should come in revenue contributions from the wealthiest Americans. This proposal does this, so I support it. I will tell you the other reason I support it. I want our country to have enough resources that a child can get the best education they should. We won't if we don't control the deficit. I want her mother to get a college education and a good job. We won't if we don't control the deficit. I want her grandmother to have Social Security and Medicare. We won't if we don't control the deficit. If you believe in the progressive things government can do, you must believe and act on reducing the deficit. This is the best and bipartisan way in front of us. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or conservative, no matter where you live, I think most people agree that the number one issue confronting our country is the lack of jobs for the American people. It is the central issue of our times, central problem of our times. The American people want us to look forward and work together and solve that problem rather than looking backward and relitigating political debates. One hundred ninety-five days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and set forth a series of specific ideas to put Americans back to work. One of those ideas was to put construction workers back to work in repairing and building our roads and bridges, building schools, wiring schools for the Internet, and in putting our construction industry and transportation industry back to work. We're going to spend 6 hours debating whether to repeal part of the health care bill--again. We're not going to spend 6 minutes debating a bill that would put our construction workers back to work fixing our roads and bridges. The Republican leadership of the House is kind of isolated on this because Democrats in the other body voted for a bill to put our construction workers back to work; and Republicans in the other body voted for the same bill. Three-quarters of the Senate voted for a bill to put our construction workers back to work. The Democrats are ready to vote for that bill. We introduced a version of that yesterday that says let's do that here, but the House Republican leadership won't put this bill on the floor. So instead what we're going to do is have what are recurring debates about whether to repeal the health care bill. People feel very strongly about the health care bill, pro and con; but I think most people feel even more strongly it's the wrong thing for us to be talking about right now. If there's a bill that three- quarters of the Senate voted for to put Americans back to work, why don't we vote on that here today? Instead, what we're going to do is vote on repealing part of the bill that talks about a committee that might or might not take action 5 years from now to do something about the way Medicare money is spent. I think if you said to a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative anywhere in this country, What would you like your House of Representatives to be voting on today: a bill that three-quarters of the Senate agreed to to put construction transportation workers back to work, or a bill that will decide whether a body will or won't act 5 years from now on the way Medicare is going to be run? I think we all know the answer to that. The right thing to do is to oppose this rule and instead put on the floor the Senate transportation bill that three-quarters of the Senate voted for. Let's approve it, let's put it on the President's desk, and let's finally work together to put Americans back to work.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding and for his compliment. When our mothers and fathers go to the doctor or the hospital, we want to be sure they get the best health care that can possibly be delivered and that their doctor and their family think they ought to get; and that health care should never be subject to the strategic plan of any insurance company or the whims of the marketplace. Because it is not profitable, as a general rule, to take care of the aged and the infirm, President Johnson and this Congress, in 1965, created the Medicare guarantee, and they guaranteed that our seniors and people with disability would get the care they need irrespective of the whims of the marketplace. The majority brings this bill to the floor today because they raise fears about what might happen to the Medicare guarantee 10 years from now. There is a very important question about Medicare before this Congress, but it's coming about 8 days from now, not 10 years from now, when the majority will bring yet another budget that systematically unravels and ends the Medicare guarantee. Call it what they will, when you have a system where the healthiest and the most prosperous and, in some cases, the youngest retirees can opt into a private insurance system, those that will be left in regular Medicare will be the aged and the infirm and the poor. Medicare will then go the way of Medicaid, which their budget cuts by nearly 40 percent, according to some estimates. Frankly, as a diversion from the real threat to Medicare, which is yet another Republican budget coming to this floor 8 days from now that will end the Medicare guarantee, we now have a series of wild accusations about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which the Congressional Budget Office says, based on current cost performance, would have no role for at least 10 years. So we hear all these things about these unelected bureaucrats making decisions. I would say, Madam Chair and fellow House Members, consider the source. Two years ago, we heard that everyone in America would be in a government-run health plan if the Affordable Care Act passed. It hasn't happened. Two years ago, we heard that every small business in America would be forced to buy unaffordable health insurance for their employees. It hasn't happened. Two years ago, we heard that every American family would have to bear a crushing tax increase because of the Affordable Care Act. It hasn't happened. Two years ago, we heard there would be drastic cuts in benefits to Medicare beneficiaries because of the Affordable Care Act. Not only has it not happened, benefits have increased. Seniors pay a lower share of their prescription drug costs and Medicare pays more. Seniors have access to annual preventive checkups without copays and deductibles. It hasn't happened. Finally, lest we forget, those who say the IPAB is such a virulent threat to Medicare and said there were death panels in the Affordable Care Act, where are they? Can anyone on the other side point to one person who has gone before a government committee and been denied health care since the Affordable Care Act and as a result of that act?

Mr. ANDREWS. It is a fiction--it is a distortion--and here we are at it again. Now, in the first 2 weeks of their majority, the majority came here and made a promise to the American people. They said: Yes, we're going to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but then we're going to replace the Affordable Care Act. It was repeal and replace. We've had the repeal as a recurring scenario on the floor. This is just another chapter in it. Where's the replace? For the provision that says that people 26 and under can stay on their parents' plans, if you repeal the Affordable Care Act, where is your bill to replace it? For the provision that says that no person can be denied health insurance or charged more for it if they're diabetic or if they have breast cancer or asthma, where is their replacement? For the provision that says that seniors who fall into the doughnut hole get significantly greater help in paying for their prescription drugs, where is their replacement? For the provision that says that small business people who voluntarily provide health insurance to their employees get a significant tax cut, where is their replacement? There's a saying that our friend from Texas says about being all hat and no horse. The majority is all repeal and no replace. So this is yet another example of a debate that's tired, worn out, and seen its day. The Affordable Care Act is helping improve the lives of Americans. An empty political debate like this one isn't, and certainly ending the Medicare guarantee, as the Republicans will try to do in 8 days, is the wrong way to go, and so is this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding, and I want to comment on something, Madam Chair, that my dear friend from Michigan, the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, said. As has become part of the Republican catechism, he talked about the so-called Medicare cuts that were in the Affordable Care Act. It is correct that in the Affordable Care Act we reduced Medicare spending by $495 billion by cutting corporate welfare to insurance companies, by cutting overpayments to medical equipment suppliers, and cracking down on fraud and abuse of the Medicare program. The majority must agree with these ideas because in the budget they are marking up today in the Budget Committee, every penny of that $495 billion in savings is included in the majority's budget. The majority must agree with these savings, and I commend them for it, because the budget resolution that passed here last year that essentially every member of the majority voted for included every penny of that $495 billion in savings. So I would ask my friends on the other side that if they're so in objection to those cuts, why did you vote for them last year? And why are they in your budget this year? I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Because the gentleman's point was there was something wrong with the cuts. Obviously, he would contradict that point. Every dollar of the cuts in the Affordable Care Act have been embraced, supported and voted for by the Republican majority for which you deserve credit.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to observe the 65th commemoration of Taiwan's ``2 28 Massacre.'' The massacre was an anti- government uprising in Taiwan that began on February 28, 1947 and was violently suppressed by General Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) government during the following weeks. Estimates of the number of deaths vary from ten thousand to thirty thousand. In the fall of 1945, 50 years of Japanese occupation of Taiwan ended after Japan had lost World War II. In October of that year, the United Nations handed administrative control of Taiwan to the KMT-administered Republic of China, ROC. Sixteen months of KMT administration on Taiwan led to the widespread impression among the people of Taiwan that the party was plagued by nepotism, corruption, and economic failure. Tensions increased between the Taiwanese people and the ROC administration. The flashpoint came on February 28, 1947 when in Taipei a dispute between a female cigarette vendor and an officer of the Government's Office of Monopoly triggered civil disorder and open rebellion by the native Taiwanese against KMT repression. During the following weeks, Chiang's government sent troops from China to Taiwan. The Chinese soldiers started to round up and execute a whole generation of a Taiwanese elite of lawyers, doctors, students, professors etc. . . It is estimated that up to 30,000 people lost their lives during the turmoil. During the following four decades, the Chinese Nationalists continued to rule Taiwan with an iron fist under a Martial Law that would not be lifted until 1987. Mr. Speaker, the Massacre had far reaching implications. Over the next half century, the Taiwanese democracy movement that grew out of the event helped pave the way for Taiwan's momentous transformation from a dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalists to a thriving and pluralistic democracy. In some ways, the 2 28 massacre was Taiwan's ``Boston Massacre'' for both events functioned as the cradle of a move by both peoples to full democracy and helped galvanize the strive to independence. Mr. Speaker, I have said it before: ``Freedom is not negotiable.'' May the lessons learned from the 2 28 Massacre continue to inspire the people of Taiwan in their struggle for freedom, full independence, international participation, and for the continued enhancement of the mutual relationship between Taiwan and the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in commemorating this sad but important historical event.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Speaker, 180 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and laid out before the country and the Congress some very specific proposals to help put Americans back to work. The President proposed that we give a tax cut to small businesses who hire people. The House has never voted on that proposal. The President proposed that at a time when our bridges and roads and airports and ports need construction and reconstruction, that we put Americans back to work in the construction industry performing those vitally necessary tasks. The House has never voted on that proposal. At a time when police officers and firefighters and teachers are being laid off across our country, the President proposed some short-term relief so we could put our officers back on the beat, our firefighters back on the apparatus, our teachers back in the classroom. The House has never voted on that proposal. Here we are 6 months later, doing what we're doing today. In that 6 months, another crisis has manifested itself, one that affects Americans across our country more severely every day, and that is each time they fill up their vehicle, it takes just a little bit more money out of their grocery budget, the utility budget, what they use to pay their mortgage payment, what they use to educate their children. The rising price of gasoline is a serious threat to the prosperity and stability of American families. The president of Exxon has said that his conclusion is that about $30 of the cost of a barrel of crude oil is attributable to the speculation of prices by people who never really buy, sell or use oil, but who bet on its price: casino gamblers, not deliverers of oil. Goldman Sachs estimates that anywhere from $22 to $28 a barrel is also due to speculation, and they ought to know because they're no doubt participating in it. The bill that we would propose be put on the floor this afternoon would crack down on that speculation. It would require that trades be disclosed; it would empower regulatory agencies to identify illegal price manipulation behavior; and reduce the price of crude oil to American consumers. There are other ways to do this. I, for one, favor increased domestic production. I think there are ways that we can increase the natural gas and coal and oil that we produce. I certainly think that we should expand renewables as well. But there is one regulatory tool that we have not given our regulators and we ought to give it to them here. The underlying bill is certainly worthy of consideration, but we have an immediate energy problem here in America, an immediate jobs problem. And I would respectfully suggest that the right vote is to defeat the previous question so we may move on and consider legislation that would deal with the current price of gasoline prices.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Sometimes the quietest voices are the ones that have the greatest impact. Donald Payne always spoke quietly, humbly; but as we reflect on his life, the impact is monumental. Tonight, there are villages in Africa where people have self- determination, human dignity, education, and health care because of the impact of his voice and his life. There are people working in the city of Newark, the counties of Essex and Union and Hudson because of businesses he helped to bring and schools he helped to build and progress he helped to make. As we heard my friend Bill Pascrell talk about, there are people in Ireland from very different heritages and backgrounds that Donald brought here who are celebrating his life because of the reach of his voice and of his life. I think, most importantly, the impact of his voice is the hollowness and sorrow that we all feel here in this institution because the quietness of his voice brought us together at times of discord and stress. Donald believed passionately in his progressive ideology, but he believed with equal passion in tolerance for those who disputed it. Donald fought fiercely for the causes in which he and I believed and he and others believed, but he never fought the rights of others to express differing views. He cared very personally about his causes, but he never took personally those who disagreed with him. This is a lesson that we should learn and abide by in this institution in years to come because it makes us better people and it makes our institution stronger. Later this week, it is a remarkable thing that this humble young man, a school teacher, a leader in the YMCA who at the beginning of his career lost many more elections than he won--lost two elections for the county executive position, lost multiple attempts to become elected to this House of Representatives, and then triumphed--someone from those humble beginnings that world leaders will come to a place of worship in the city of Newark to commemorate his life. But I think what's more indicative of Donald's contribution is that as those world leaders come through Newark Airport into the city that Donald loved, there will be janitors and school teachers and truck drivers and day care providers and laborers and electricians and Americans of all walks of life, people of all walks of life who will know and acknowledge the great impact of this quiet voice. His voice has sadly been stilled; but let us celebrate the fact that his impact will live in our world, in our country, in our institution, and in our hearts forever. May God bless his family and comfort them at this time of affliction.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. 174 days ago, the President of the United States came to this floor and made a series of proposals to help small businesses and big businesses create jobs for the American people. Only one element of that jobs plan has been dealt with, belatedly, which is the extension of the middle class tax cut. There has been no vote on a bill to create construction jobs, on the rebuilding of our libraries and schools; no vote on a bill to cut taxes for small businesses that create jobs; no vote on bills that would put our police officers and firefighters back on the job or our teachers back in the classroom. Nothing. Now, the bill that is before us today is very important, not just for California but for the country, and it is something that needs to be taken up. I respect all views on all sides, but I think it's time that the House leadership respected the urgent economic problems of this country. Since the President came here, there has been another increasingly urgent economic problem, which is the manipulation of gasoline prices by speculators, and Americans are seeing the consequences of this at the pump every day. Members on our side have some ideas to stop this speculation and to stop the pillaging of the wallets of American consumers at the gas pumps every day. Not surprisingly, that's not coming up for a vote either. The priorities of the House are misaligned with the priorities of the American people. Let's put on this floor legislation that creates jobs and that gives relief to our people at the fuel pumps.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding and my friends from Pennsylvania and Minnesota for sponsoring this bill. Tonight, we stand united and strong for the release of Pastor Youcef. Although the legal case for his release is overwhelming, as Mr. Pitts has outlined, we do not rely on the law in our plea. Though our political convictions shared among everyone on both sides of the aisle I believe here are deep, our appeal is not based on politics. Instead, our appeal is based on the ineffable human quality of the loving bond between a parent and his children. Whether one worships in a mosque, a temple, a church, a synagogue, or some other forum not known to us, whether one chooses not to worship at all, whether one lives on any of the continents of the world, practices any of the political ideologies of the world, is there not a common bond among those who feel the overwhelming love when they first hold their daughter or their son? Is there not a common bond among those who feel the anxiety of worrying whether a sick child will be healed? Is there not a common bond of the immense pride that a mother or a father feels when their children achieve some hard-fought goal? Is there not a common bond of the empty and hurtful feeling that people know that someday they will have to depart from the children they love so dearly? That day is coming all too soon for Pastor Youcef if those who are mothers and fathers, who are his captors, do not consider that ineffable human bond. This is a man who tonight sits in prison awaiting execution because he loved his children enough to insist that they be free to worship as he and his family thought they ought to worship. This is labeled as ``apostasy.'' The act of his arrest and impending execution is a monstrous act of inhumanity. We do not appeal to the law, though it is on our side. We do not deal from political consensus, although I believe it exists in and out of this country. Our appeal is based on the simple, ineffable quality that parents have an innate right to love their children. This man has been deprived of this right. That deprivation should not exist for another hour, another day, another moment. We will stand strong and united in calling for the humane release of Pastor Youcef, and we pray tonight that that wish will be granted by his captors, who must understand that they have that same ineffable love.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. First, let me say I agree with my friend from California that the highest priority in higher education ought to be avoiding that doubling of student loan rates this summer. We should get to work on that. Second, I rise in support of this bill, and let me tell you why. There is no question that avoiding fraudulent or wrongful credit hours is something we need to do. If someone pays for a credit hour, it ought to really be worth what they're paying for. And certainly, if the Federal taxpayers are paying for this through a Pell Grant or a student loan, it certainly ought to be worth what we're paying for. The question is, Who is best positioned to make that determination? For years in American higher education, we've had a system where a combination of institutions, their regional accrediting bodies--which are peer accreditors--and to some extent State governments have decided the answer to that question. Without question, there have been some abuses. Without question, there have been some wrong answers. I don't think that those abuses or wrong answers justify adding another layer of decision-making to the system, which would be the Department of Education. I certainly do think it is worth the attention of the committee, the Congress, and the administration to think about ways to root out the bad practices that we have seen; but I think yet another level of rulemaking is the wrong way to go. The other objection that I would make to the rule is that I think that we've fallen into a pattern here, particularly in higher education, where too few decisions are being made in a statutory way by this body and too many decisions are being made by the Department of Education through the regulatory process. As a result of these objections, a broad coalition of educators across the country is in support of this bill, and I am pleased to join that coalition and urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill here today.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the beloved Marianne C. Raphaely of Cherry Hill, NJ, who passed away on Sunday, February 5, 2012. With her passing, South Jersey lost one of its most devoted philanthropists. It is today that we remember a loving mother, grandmother, teacher, and tireless contributor to the community. Born and raised in Trumbull, CT, she graduated from Mary Washington College in 1959 with a bachelor's degree in Psychology and Education. After college, she began teaching grade school in Connecticut and then in California while her husband served as a physician in Vietnam until settling in Cherry Hill with her family in 1968. She served as the Vice President of the Board of the Technical Schools of Camden County from 1999 to 2003 and as a member of the Cherry Hill Board of Education for 9 years. In addition to her work as a teacher, Marianne volunteered countless hours of her time to many artistic, health care, and educational organizations throughout the Philadelphia area. As the Chairperson of Art in City Hall, she led the effort to place local artists' works throughout Philadelphia's City Hall. Marianne served as a trustee for the Rock School of Dance Education, the Coriell Institute of Medical Research, The Please Touch Museum, and several other charities. She was recognized for her charity work by receiving the Association of Fundraising Professionals' Volunteer of the Year Award for 2005 2006 and the Please Touch Museum's Great Friends to Kids Lifetime Achievement Award. With a passion for teaching children, natural leadership abilities, a deep sense of responsibility to her community and a love for all things social, she developed close working relationships and friendships with scores of people from all walks of life. She understood the real passion that children have for learning and worked tirelessly to represent that ideal. Although she was so involved, nothing could take away the powerful relationship she had with her family. She and her husband of 50 years raised two sons in Cherry Hill, traveled the world together, and more recently, spent cherished time with their grandchildren. She is survived by her husband, Dr. Russell of Cherry Hill, NJ, her two sons, Christopher and James, a sister, Kathryn Sirico, and five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is at this time that we remember Marianne Raphaely and keep her family in our hearts and prayers. She was a wonderful woman of remarkable measures who will truly be missed by many.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. One hundred sixty days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and put forward a plan to create jobs for our country. One of the ideas that he had to create jobs for our country was to put our construction workers back to work building schools and fixing roads and bridges so they could have money to spend in stores and restaurants and help the country. For 160 days, the majority ignored this idea. Now what they've done is brought this idea to the floor that is doomed for failure and won't work. In the other body, Republicans and Democrats worked together and 80 Members have voted for a bill that in fact would put construction workers back to work, they're cooperating on it, and I think it has a great chance to pass and be signed by the President. But consistent with their principle that consensus is always to be avoided, the majority over here did something else. The ``something else'' is a bill that will actually kill jobs in the United States, and we should not support it. But the way they did it I think merits some mention. Many on the other side were outraged when they thought the health care bill was going to be brought up when no one had read it and it wasn't going to be a straight up-or-down vote. What in fact happened was the health care bill was available to the public and the Members for 7 weeks-- every word of it--and there was a direct up-or-down vote. What we have here is a bill that's 1,000 pages long that almost no one has read and a procedure that avoids having an up-or-down vote on the bill. If you thought it was wrong in March of 2010--and it would have been, which is why we didn't do it--then it's wrong now. We should oppose the rule, oppose the bill, and work together to put Americans back to work.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for this opportunity. We got some welcome economic news last Friday that companies added about 250,000 private sector jobs. It's long overdue, and we hope and pray that it continues for many, many months to come. The country is coming back, but we have a very long way to go. I think one of the reasons why the country is coming back is because at the beginning of 2011, everybody who earned a wage in this country got a fairly substantial tax cut so that they would buy more in the stores and maybe eat a little bit in the restaurants and buy more goods and services. And I think that and some other things started to work. The worst thing that we could do would be to interrupt that recovery by failing to extend this tax relief for middle class Americans. I'm willing to take at face value that I think almost everyone in this House agrees with that proposition. And I think everyone agrees with the proposition that it would do great harm to our economy not to make this happen. Here is what I think stands in the way of where we are and where we need to get to: in any negotiation, you can't succeed by negotiation through ultimatum. There are some things that I really think ought to happen. I, frankly, think the way to pay for this is a very small tax surcharge on the very wealthiest Americans. I think that those who make more than $1 million a year, who have gotten, by the way, 90 percent of the pay increases in this country over the last decade, I think asking them to contribute to deficit reduction is a fair and reasonable thing to do. I think it's what we should do. But I don't think we should make it an ultimatum. And I don't think our party is making it an ultimatum. The problem here, as I see it, is that the last time we went around in this 1-year extension, we heard from the other side two very important matters that I think are rather extraneous to solving this problem. The first had the functional effect of a cut in unemployment benefits. Now, at a time when there are four unemployed Americans for every one open job, I think to presume that the unemployed are lazy or are not working hard to find a job is really just factually incorrect and, frankly, indefensible. So we don't agree with extending this recovery by cutting the unemployment benefits of people out there looking for work. We just don't think that's a good idea. Then the other ultimatum came on the issue of the pipeline. And there are all different views on the pipeline--some pro, some con--within both parties. I hope that what we're able to do is to stop the negotiation by ultimatum and extend this for the rest of the year. And the purpose of Mr. Bishop's amendment needs to be looked at. There is no good reason why this can't be done by the 17th of February. Frankly, it should have been done by the 17th of January. And we all made this decision at the end of December. There was no reason why this couldn't have been done in the month of January, but here we are. When the American people have a dispute in their family, in their business, at the labor negotiations table, at their school board, no matter where they are, they do not negotiate by ultimatum. Neither should the Congress. And, frankly, when I heard from the other side in December that we must do the pipeline or no extension of the tax cut, you know, we must cut unemployment benefits or no extension of the tax cut, that's no way to run the country. And that's not what we ought to do.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Is the gentleman asserting that the Senate was in recess until January 24?

Mr. ANDREWS. That means that the gentleman must support President Obama's appointments to the Labor Board?