Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there is an unfortunate time-honored tradition in the House of people coming to the floor and objecting to reductions in spending with heartfelt arguments as to why the spending is necessary and never offering any suggestions about where the money might be made up instead. That, frankly, is one of the reasons we have the huge deficits and debts that we do. So I want to break with that tradition and talk to you about a spending reduction I have a great concern about and then talk about how we might make it up instead. There is not a person in this House who has not been touched in some way by cancer in their family, in someone they love, some friend. I don't think there is anybody here who hasn't had the heartbreak of dealing with malignancy in their family. Let me say from the outset, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is a Member of this House that doesn't want to do everything he or she could to deal with solving that problem. There is not a Member in this place, Republican or Democrat, who is indifferent to the problem of fighting cancer. Now, cancer comes from a lot of things. It's genetic. It's hereditary. It comes from foods. But a lot of it comes from the environment. It comes from water. If the water we drink or we cook with or we bathe in is not clean, it can sometimes be the trigger that triggers the dreaded disease of cancer for someone we care about. So a long time ago when this was discovered in the 1960s, there was a bipartisan agreement to try to do something to try to clean the water of this country and keep it clean. It was upheld by Presidents like Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, many others, Democrats and Republicans in control of Congress. That's why I have to look at the bill before us today and just be astonished by the fact that the Clean Water Fund is cut by 55 percent. Let me say that again. The fund that has been set up to protect the clean water of our country that is consumed by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, cut by 55 percent. The amount of that cut is about $833 million below the amount of money that we spent last year; about $833 million. Usually, people stop there. But I want to talk about where we should get the money instead. Now, $833 million is less than 3 days' worth of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about that? We will spend more than $833 million in the next 3 days in Kabul and Baghdad, in part to help build clean water systems there, in part to help create jobs there. I just think that's inexcusable that we find ourselves in a position where we're spending in 2 or 3 days in Iraq and Afghanistan what we could spend to eliminate this cut and provide clean drinking water for the people of our country. The amount of subsidies we're going to give oil companies--the oil companies made record profits in 2010. They made about $60 billion in profits, if I'm not mistaken--$77 billion, actually, in profits last year. We'll spend six times as much of this cut in the Clean Water Fund to give money away to those oil companies this year. These are people who made $77 billion in profits last year, whose stocks are off the charts, who are paying their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, and we're going to give them about $7 billion from the wallets of the people of this country this year. That's six times the amount of this cut in the Clean Water Fund. So I understand if you come to the floor you've got the responsibility of saying, Well, if you don't want to cut this, you've got the responsibility to say, Where else should we get it from? I think that's a reasonable rule under which to live. So, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my proposal would be this: Let's not reduce the Clean Water Fund by 55 percent. Let's not say to cities and villages and towns and States and Indian tribes around our country that the money that we lend to them--we don't give it to them; most of the time it's a loan--to help build clean water systems that bring clean water to our kitchens and our homes and our places of worship and work, hospitals, let's not reduce that. Instead, let's take 2\1/2\ days of what we're going to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan and put it there. Let's take one-sixth of the money we're going to hand to the oil companies and put it there. This is something we shouldn't do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I respectfully would correct the record and say the Republicans have not created no jobs; they've created four, for four more bureaucrats who will ignore the abuses the banks are predicating on the American people.

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate the gentlelady. So I would just say to you that after 198 days of essentially nothing on jobs, they now bring to the floor a bill that says, let's fix the jobs problem by having fewer regulators watch the big banks. There are very few people in America who think the problem is the banks didn't have enough regulators. Unfortunately, almost all of them are in this Chamber on the Republican side of the aisle. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from New York for yielding. Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for 15 million Americans, and this is the 198th day of the Republican majority. It is the 198th day that they've brought no legislation to the floor to address the jobs crisis and create jobs for the American people. Now most of those 198 days, they've ignored the problem. Today's bill is a curious approach to the problem that I think makes it worse. Americans painfully remember what happened in the fall of 2008 when the big banks started to go under and slip under. People's 401(k) accounts melted, people's home equity disappeared, and to this day most Americans' homes aren't worth nearly what they were worth in the fall of 2008. Foreclosures went up, jobs went down, and people's hopes went out the window. The predicate of today's bill is the reason that all happened is there weren't enough regulators watching the banks. Or, excuse me, the predicate of today's bill is that there were too many regulators watching the banks. I had it backward because it's so obvious. You understand that today's bill starts from the presumption that the problem here is that there were too many people watching what the banks did to make sure they did the right thing by the country. I think exactly the opposite was true. I think the fact that these banks could take money insured by the taxpayers under the FDIC and gamble it on credit default swaps was wrong; I think the fact that they could sell junk bonds masquerading as valid mortgages was wrong; I think the fact that they charged extortionist credit card interest rates was wrong; I think the fact that they papered over loans for people who never should have gotten loans was wrong. And the problem was not that their hands were too tied; the problem was that they were being ignored by the regulators.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon to consider this very necessary legislation, too many Americans are looking at yet another Friday without a paycheck. Too many Americans are leery when they hear the phone ring for fear it's another dunning phone call from a creditor they can't pay. Too many Americans are stuck for yet another week in a part-time job that doesn't come anywhere close to paying their families' bills. The country has a jobs crisis. We have the same number of private sector jobs in America today that we had in 2001, and we have 14 percent more people looking for work. We have a jobs crisis. This is the 196th day of the majority that now runs the House of Representatives, and on not one of those days has the majority taken advantage of the opportunity to come to the floor, work together on legislation that would address this jobs crisis here in our country. I believe that resolving this crisis requires us to work together in three areas: First, we have to get our fiscal house in order as a government. We can no longer borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and we certainly cannot let this country fail to meet its obligation to pay its bills--a deadline that is on August 2. Failure to do that would mean more than simply failing our country's national obligations. It would mean higher mortgage rates; it would mean higher car loan rates, higher small business rates; and if we miss the deadline, it would mean not enough money to pay Social Security checks or our troops or our creditors. We cannot let that happen. Just across this Capitol, there are signs of hope, where Members of the other body from both political parties have begun to have a serious proposal put on the table that would significantly address our budget problem by reducing entitlement spending, which we must do; by reducing spending on regular government programs, which we must do; by reducing spending on defense in areas that would not weaken our country, which we must do; and yes, by requiring the wealthiest and most successful of Americans to pay a bit more towards solving this problem. That is a fair and balanced way to approach this problem. I am heartened by the fact that, across the Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats are beginning to make that effort. We should make the same effort here, something we could agree to. Second, we've got to stimulate the demand for businesses in this country. I think the main reason so many employers are not hiring is they legitimately fear there won't be enough customers to buy their appliances or their antibiotics or their software, that there isn't enough demand in our economy. One of the reasons we don't have that demand is we send $1 billion a day to Middle Eastern countries which sell us oil. Why don't we keep that $1 billion here in the United States of America and put it to work by putting Americans to work, whether it's in building windmill farms off the coast or solar farms throughout our rural areas or in exploring regular, conventional sources of energy in a safe and environmentally conscious way. Let's do that. Why aren't we investing to give ourselves a continued lead in the biotechnology industry? As scientists are figuring out ways to grow new tissue that heals hearts and livers and kidneys, why aren't we working to retain our leadership position in the world in order to create jobs here in our country? So these are ways that we could and should work together.

Mr. ANDREWS. Why aren't we doing far more than we're doing this afternoon on this airport bill? Airport investment puts Americans to work, and good air travel makes growth possible, but look at what we're doing: a temporary, scanty extension of our investment in our air traffic system because we can't get our fiscal house in order to agree to the kind of extension that we need. We have 196 days of missed opportunity. Let's not make tomorrow the 197th day of missed opportunity. Let's come together; work together as Republicans and Democrats, and create an environment where entrepreneurs can begin to create the jobs that we so desperately need here in our country. Yes, we have a deficit in America--it is a very serious deficit--but the most serious deficit we have is a jobs deficit, and until we can find a way to put 15 million unemployed Americans back to work, our deficits will continue.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, the country has a job crisis. We have the same private sector jobs we did in 2001 and 14 percent more people looking for work. One of the ways to solve that job crisis, not the only way, is to try to keep interest rates stable and low so entrepreneurs can invest. Today represents a terrible wasted opportunity. On the other side of this Capitol this very morning, three Democratic Senators and three Republican Senators came together and said they were ready to embrace a plan that begins by cutting spending about $3 out of every $4. It cuts social programs. It would cut defense, get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It would take a serious look at Medicare and Social Security, which are in many cases contributing to this deficit. And it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. Something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the President can sign it, and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take a step in the right direction. But we don't have something like that. Instead, we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the Constitution: The guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies to make profits is completely left alone. He doesn't have to do anything. But the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children, and her parents, and more for just about anything else she wants in her life. There is something wrong with that picture. Sacrifice that is equitably and broadly shared is needed in this country, but a blind adherence to a special class of Americans who are so powerful and so entitled they pay nothing is the wrong way to go. And the last thing in the world we ought to do is put that error on the Constitution. Vote ``no'' on this travesty.

Mr. ANDREWS. I'd like to take time out for just a minute and go back to the question I'm hearing most people in America ask about, which is jobs. And one of the things we keep hearing from the other side is that asking ethanol producers to give up their subsidy or asking corporations to give up their special loopholes is a job-destroying idea. Please, before you cast this vote, all Members look at these facts. In 2001, and again in 2002, we did what the majority says endlessly they want to do--cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The economy produced zero net private sector jobs between 2001 and 2008. In 1993, President Clinton did the opposite of what the majority says it wants to do. He made a modest increase in the tax rate of the wealthiest Americans. The economy produced 23 million new private sector jobs. The House deserves the facts in going forward in this debate, and the American people deserve a real jobs plan from this House.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. H.R. 33, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 602 on approving the journal, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paul Hartstein, Fire Marshall for the Camden County Fire Department. Chief Hartstein will be retiring after decades of exemplary service to his community. His dedication is an extraordinary example for the entire South Jersey community. Chief Hartstein, a native of Camden County, created a career serving his community. Prior to his appointment as Fire Marshall, he served as Fire Chief for the city of Audubon. Later, he worked as Vice President of the Audubon Fire Department and as a New Jersey Fire Commissioner. Try as he might, the chief can not fully retire; he will be acting as a part-time code official for the cities of Audubon and Haddonfield. Chief Hartstein has been honored on several occasions, demonstrating his enduring commitment to South Jersey. He recently received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Greater Philadelphia Burn Foundation. Previously, the International Association of Arson Investigators honored Chief Hartstein with both the President's Award and the Investigator of the Year award. These decorations exemplify his dedication and ability as a firefighter. Married for 29 years, Chief Hartstein and his wife are the proud parents of a daughter, who is studying in Boston, and a son who is following in his father's footsteps as a firefighter with the Cherry Hill Fire Company. Firefighters are essential members of every community. Chief Hartstein has demonstrated the dedication, bravery, leadership, and sacrifice necessary to excel at this noble calling. I thank him for his decades of service to Camden County and wish him the best in his semi- retirement.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, through the Chair, that he makes a very compelling case. I agree with him. I think that the secret groups that are funding massive--usually negative--ad campaigns against people running for office should be held to exactly the same standard labor unions are held under present law. If a labor union uses dues money or PAC money or any money to advocate for or against a candidate or a cause, they must disclose it to the public and to their members. That is precisely the principle that Ms. Eshoo is standing for, and I am proud to stand with her. If you really believe in something that you say, then you shouldn't be ashamed to let everyone know that you said it. If you really believe that what you're advocating is right for the country, then you will let everyone know that you said it. It's a simple principle of disclosure. It is something that I think is long overdue. Let's not have anybody hide in the shadows of the American political process.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the staff of the ProCon.org website. This site has recently been honored by the American Library Association as one of the Top 25 Free Reference Websites of 2011. This achievement is indicative of ProCon's value as a resource empowering citizens with information on some of the most controversial topics of the day. ProCon.org, like many websites, is the product of a simple idea: to make unbiased information on controversial subjects more accessible without opinion or editorializing interfering. This idea came to the founder and CEO of ProCon.org, Steven C. Markoff, in 1984. While debating with a friend, Mr. Markoff realized that the popular discourse about the big issues of the day is always clouded by rhetoric, opinions and political leanings. Since its inception, ProCon.org has influenced policy debates with its mission of ``presenting research on controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan, and primarily pro-con format.'' More than 10 million people use this website every month for research and fact finding. ProCon has also been named a ``Best Non Profit to Work For'' by OpportunityKnocks.org and a ``Valued Partner'' by GuideStar. ProCon was further honored in 2008, when the Library of Congress asked to archive three of ProCon's websites as ``materials of historical importance to the Congress and to the American People.'' It is my distinct pleasure to honor the staff of ProCon.org and wish them continued success in their service to the American public. Their unbiased and truthful presentation makes a tremendous contribution to the political system.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States went to the United Nations Security Council to urge intervention in the Libyan civil war, he frankly missed a stop. He should have come here first, and this Congress should have debated the wisdom or lack thereof of that effort. Knowing what I know about this, had that debate taken place here, I would be one who would have voted against authorizing the use of force here because I do not believe we have a vital national security interest in the Libyan civil war. I am going to oppose this resolution, however, because I think that two constitutional wrongs do not make a right. Again, I believe the President should have come here and sought the authorization of this Congress before he initiated these hostilities, and they are hostilities. But when we have people at risk, when we have lives on the line, I think this resolution raises a practical and a constitutional problem. The practical problem, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) alluded to a few minutes ago, and I can think of another variation. If a NATO ally is sending people into Libya on an intelligence-gathering function and asks us to provide air cover for that function, is that an intelligence operation or isn't it? I don't know, there's a good argument on either side, but it's an adjudication that I don't think a U.S. commander in the field ought to have to make. I think it's a practical confusion that does not serve us well when people are at risk. Then, secondly, just as the President has the obligation, I believe, to seek approval of this body and the other one before he initiates hostilities, he also has the responsibility to conduct those affairs once they begin. Our role is to oversee and fund or not fund such activities, but it is not to interfere with them. I think this is an impractical interference; so I'm going to vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Brooklawn Fire Company for its 100 years of service to the citizens of Brooklawn. The brave men of the Brooklawn Fire Company have consistently displayed true heroism and commitment throughout the past century. I thank them for their service. Founded in 1911, the Brooklawn Fire Company was originally two separate departments. After the Broadway Fire Company and Brooklawn Volunteer Company had served the area for a number of years, the two companies merged in order to increase efficiency and enhance coverage. On January 27, 1942, the two became the Brooklawn Volunteer Fire Company. Throughout this process, serving the community was always the top priority. To this day, the men of the Brooklawn Fire Company are active public servants and dedicated members of the community, sponsoring local events and fostering a sense of safety in the Borough of Brooklawn. With 2 stations, 25 active members, and 15 inactive members, the Brooklawn Fire Company is committed to the community. As volunteers, these citizen fire fighters are often wrongly overlooked. They have dedicated their time and energy to uphold a simple promise: to answer the call of duty whenever the fire alarm rings. Their sense of community reaches far beyond the borders of Brooklawn. When neighboring towns call for help, the Brooklawn Fire Company stands ready to serve. Today, I honor these men for continuing and keeping a century long tradition of service alive and thriving. Their heroism and sacrifice are exemplary for the Borough of Brooklawn and the entire South Jersey community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today offering my sincere congratulations to the Rutgers Law School Class of 2011. I additionally would like to recognize Rutgers-Camden Professor John Beckerman. Professor Beckerman possesses a keen legal mind and a passion for teaching. He has taught many classes ranging from Medieval European History to Duty and Fairness in Corporate Law at many esteemed schools, including Yale University, the University of Michigan, and Rutgers-Camden Law. This spring, he was selected by this year's Rutgers-Camden graduating class as the 2011 ``Professor of the Year.'' As part of this honor, Professor Beckerman delivered the Class Day Speech to the Rutgers School of Law- Camden class of 2011 on May 18, 2011. It is my privilege to read his remarks into the Record: Honored Guests, Dear Friends, There are a lot of lawyers in our country--something approaching one million two hundred thousand--and despite all who leave the profession every year, loud voices constantly tell us that there are too many lawyers, too much law, too much regulation; that we need fewer lawyers, less law, and especially less regulation. Not everyone in the audience will agree with me, and that's fine, but I have a different message for you. Quite apart from the ongoing debate about the proper size and scope of government, never have we needed capable and courageous lawyers more than we need you now. Never has our society needed your knowledge; your skills; your policy expertise; your problem solving ability; your good judgment; your sensitivity to the plight of ordinary people, to say nothing of the poor, disadvantaged and oppressed, more than we need it today. History shows that lawyers and legal doctrine always have served those of wealth and privilege. It is no coincidence that property law in Anglo-American jurisprudence largely developed in its main outlines before the laws of crime, torts, and contract. Because wealthy and powerful persons and entities can better afford lawyers than can the rest of us, they not only hire lawyers more easily, but also elect legislators, influence who become judges, and exert disproportionate influence on both the law enacted by legislatures and doctrine declared by courts. What difference does this make today? The past thirty years have seen the greatest concentration of wealth upwards ever in the history of our republic. The effects of these economic changes on the law and politics are not surprising, but are cause for enormous concern. As Jay Feinman has demonstrated (UN-MAKING LAW: THE CONSERVATIVE CAMPAIGN TO ROLL BACK THE COMMON LAW, Boston, 2004), there has been a movement in legislatures and courts to reduce the legal protections available to ordinary people and to increase the legal benefits our government gives to corporations and individuals of wealth and power. It's no secret that the General Electric Company paid no federal income taxes in 2010 despite making more than $5 billion in profits, that the government gives $4 billion of tax subsidies every year to the oil industry despite the huge profits they are making as gas prices top $4 per gallon, and that billionaires who have died since the beginning of 2010 paid no federal estate taxes. You don't need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture. We need lawyers and legislators with vision and courage to correct these distributional inequities currently enshrined in law. Consistent with the trend of reducing protections for ordinary people, in the past month and a half, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court issued two decisions that I find very disturbing. In one (AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-903, April 27, 2011), they held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts efforts of state courts to limit contractual arbitration clauses that they deem unfair to consumers. As soon as corporations insert into every contract an arbitration clause limiting your right to sue and waiving your right to represent others, this decision will effectively end all consumer and employment class action lawsuits throughout the United States, as well as their disciplining effects on corporate behavior. In another case (Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571, March 29, 2011), the majority expanded the doctrine of municipal immunity to overturn a damage award won by a man who served eighteen years on death row in Louisiana for crimes he did not commit as a result of the district attorney's deliberately withholding from the defense the exculpatory evidence that eventually exonerated him, in flagrant violation of well-settled constitutional law. And a year ago, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), the same majority held that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people, thus effectively eviscerating most legislative efforts to limit the corrosive effects of money on politics. Do we need educated, proficient and courageous lawyers to restore balance to the law in these areas? Of course we do. But those aren't the only reasons we need you so badly. The same interests that tell us there are too many lawyers continue to try to cripple protection of the environment from greenhouse gases, to limit protection of the oceans from oil well blowouts such as BP's Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, to hinder protection of the drinking water supply in Pennsylvania and New York from the carcinogenic effects of hydraulic fracking chemicals used to extract natural gas, to reduce protection of the nation's food supply and pharmaceuticals, to obstruct protection of the capital markets and investors from the same excesses of Wall Street and the banking industry that melted down our financial system in 2008 and gave us the Great Recession; to end protection of severely injured victims of medical negligence and abuse by physicians and hospitals in the guise of tort reform, and to vilify public employees including policemen, firemen and teachers and abolish their collective bargaining rights. We know from sad experience that free markets don't regulate themselves, that the environment and the public health don't protect themselves, that trickle-down economics doesn't work, and that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. But we need lawyers to translate that experience into law if the public is to be protected from the worst excesses of free market capitalism and corporate greed. We need you for other compelling reasons also. In 2009, over 6,600 hate crimes were reported in the United States, almost half against victims targeted because of their race, the rest against victims targeted because of their religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or disability. We need lawyers not only to prosecute the perpetrators, but also to dispel the dual curses of ignorance and intolerance that cause these crimes and to protect the civil rights of the persons who are their targets. And throughout the world, peoples emerging from the yokes of tyrannical and dictatorial regimes need the assistance of lawyers to establish laws that will afford them the blessings of fair and peaceful democratic government. My new lawyer colleagues, the challenges that await you are serious and daunting. Both American society and the world need you desperately. The faculty and staff of the law school and all who have supported you during your time here have the highest hopes for each and every one of you. We offer you only one challenge as you graduate from Rutgers Law School. Make us all proud of you! Thank you very much.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 420 for H.R. 2112, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417 for H.R. 2055, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 418 for H.R. 2055, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 419 for H. Res. 300, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, because the Constitution vests the authority to declare war in the Congress, I oppose the administration's decision to dispatch American troops into hostilities in Libya without coming here first. I think that was an error. But because I take those constitutional obligations very seriously and because each of us should take them very seriously, I oppose this rule and the underlying resolution from Speaker Boehner. I find it ironic that, at a time when the institution is trying to assert its rightful constitutional place, the Speaker has proposed a resolution which is wholly ineffective and purely symbolic. This resolution pursues a gravely important objective in a rather frivolous and ineffective way. If we believe that the conduct of a military operation is inappropriate for the country, there are tools available to us under the Constitution. Each one of those tools, whether it involves ceasing appropriations or involves other types of remedies, requires the consent of both the House and the Senate. To be effective, we must be bicameral. And to be bicameral, we have to put a resolution on the floor, the passage of which would lead to consideration by the Senate. The Boehner resolution, by its own terms, does not do that. So the question the Members ought to be asking themselves here, whether they are for or against the incursion in Libya, whether they think it should cease or continue, is: What is the effect of passing the Boehner resolution? As a practical and legal matter, the effect is nothing--nothing. All of the items the President would be directed to do, any of the steps the President would be prohibited from taking are meaningless if the Boehner resolution passes because the Boehner resolution does not contemplate being considered by the Senate. So I would offer this to Members, that if they are looking for a resolution that, in fact, has effect and meaning, Mr. Kucinich's resolution has real effect and meaning because it is a due exercise of the constitutional authority of the Congress. The Speaker's resolution, which I take certainly in good faith, has none of that effectiveness and none of that practical consequence. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule precisely because of the principle of congressional authority. If you believe that we should exercise our constitutional authority, then let's really exercise it. Let's put something before the body that has real and practical meaning. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel John Rawley for his dedication to protecting our country, both as a member of the United States Armed Forces and as a member of the Camden County Sheriff's Office. Colonel Rawley began his distinguished career in the military in 1954 at the age of 20, when he joined the United States Marine Corps as a Private First Class. In 1957, he joined the United States Army and served over 30 years. During his illustrious career, Colonel Rawley earned numerous decorations, including the Soldiers' Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Parachute Badge, the Army Service Ribbon, and countless others. He retired from the United States Army on August 8, 1987, after more than 30 years of protecting our country. After his decades of military service, Colonel Rawley's patriotism and dedication were continued when he joined the Camden County Sheriff's Office in 1997. Colonel Rawley, known affectionately as ``The Colonel'' or ``Ranger John,'' worked 13 years for the Camden County Sheriff's Office, mentoring and training officers throughout the department. He retired on December 1, 2010 as a respected and distinguished member of the department. Colonel Rawley's selfless dedication to our Nation demands recognition. His decades in the military and the Camden County Sheriff's Office should serve as an inspiration to others. I thank him for his service, and extend my sincere best wishes to Colonel Rawley in his retirement.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill would be improved by an amendment similar to that which Ms. Eshoo just offered, and here's why. Justice Brandeis said sunlight is the great antiseptic of democracy, and we have followed his teaching to a great extent in conducting our democracy. Mr. Chairman, you and I and every other Member on this floor must disclose every dollar we raise and every dollar we spend in the pursuit of our politics, so must the National Republican Campaign Committee, so must the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, so must people running for the United States Senate and for the Office of Presidency. And I think our democracy is strengthened by this. Now, we have a disagreement over whether there should be limitations on what people may spend. I, frankly, believe that limitations are appropriate, but I know that some of our colleagues who follow the libertarian principle believe that limitations on what someone may spend is a violation of someone's right of free speech. I respectfully disagree, but I understand it. There should be no disagreement, though, over a universal requirement to disclose who has spent what. If you're proud of what you say, then you ought to let people know who it was that said it. But instead we have, as my friend from California said, a dark corner of American politics where people who wish to manipulate the outcome of elections and influence legislation have a special privilege that Republicans and Democrats in this House do not have, that Members of the Senate do not have, that the Presidential candidates do not have. They can say what they want to say but not say who they are. They can hide behind corporate veils and within corporate shadows to fail to disclose who they are. Now, I find this to be puzzling. I think the Members of this House are proud of what we say. I think the Members of this House want the public to know whom we support and whom we oppose because we believe in what we say. Who are these people who want to spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars to influence elections but are afraid the public will find out who they are? And why should they enjoy this special privilege? So I think we do need an amendment like that that Ms. Eshoo put forward that says that if you want the privilege of doing business with the United States Government, then one of the conditions is to participate in a healthy democracy that runs that United States Government. And that healthy democracy would include a requirement that people winning business with our government meet the same level of disclosure that every single one of us does. I'm proud of the things that my party and my friends say on the floor; and I'm, frankly, proud of what our adversaries say on the floor because they believe in good faith that what they say is right for the country. And they don't hide a thing--maybe the public thinks we should hide sometimes when we say the things we do, but we don't hide a thing. Why should there be a special class of Americans who have the prerogative of free speech, but not the obligation to identify themselves when they speak? This is an insipid, insidious threat to the free exchange of ideas. We should use every tool within our constitutional purview to stop this threat. I think Ms. Eshoo has a great idea, and I hope that under a truly open rule the day will come when we can consider her idea. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chair

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, for years, working Americans, paycheck after paycheck, week after week, have paid taxes into the Medicare trust fund. And after they paid those taxes, this country made a promise to them that Medicare's guaranteed benefits would be there for them for the rest of their life. The issue before the House today is whether we honor or dishonor that promise. The Republican plan to abandon Medicare abandons those guaranteed benefits. The Republican plan to abandon Medicare says that rather than seniors and their doctors deciding what care the seniors should get, private health insurance companies make that decision. Part of the promise of Medicare was that health care would be reasonably affordable to our seniors and retirees. The Republican plan to abandon Medicare violates that promise. It raises the out-of-pocket cost of health care for our seniors by $6,000 a year. We agree that Medicare needs improvement and that Medicare outlays need to be restrained. That's why we support giving the Medicare administration the same authority to negotiate prescription drug prices that the VA has, instead of just paying whatever the drug companies demand. The issue in this vote is not simply the value of Medicare; the issue in this vote is whether Americans can value the promise that we made to them in the future. Vote against this rule; vote to honor the promise of Medicare.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the Treasury had a dollar for every time someone says they want to cut the deficit, we wouldn't have one. So let's stop talking about cutting the deficit and talk about how we can cut the deficit. Let's let Medicare negotiate the price of prescription drugs, rather than pay whatever the drug companies demand, and save $300 billion over 10 years. Let's stop occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and paying their bills, to the tune of $110 billion a year, and bring the troops home. Let's stop giving $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that made record profits last year. Let's require people who make more than $1 million a year to pay just a little bit more to help reduce this problem. And let's have sensible reductions in other departments of government. This is not a time for us to be providing cover to a political party. It is a time for us to cover the obligations to our seniors, not by abolishing Medicare but by improving it, to cover obligations to our veterans, and cover obligations to the country. We will come back in a couple of weeks and do what we should be doing tonight, which is to raise this debt ceiling and protect this country.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.