Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have not had Bob Woodward in my office, but I have had in my office a guy who remodels kitchens for a living. He told me that, even though the economy has picked up a little bit, it's still not as good as it needs to be, and his concern is the one that I bring to the floor here today. I believe that the majority is putting the country on the perilous path to a government shutdown with this vote, and the government shutdown is bad enough. It's bad enough that, on October 1, I think it's now likely that the people who inspect our food, that the people who now help pursue criminals at the FBI and that the people who run our National Guard Armories won't be showing up for work because of the government shutdown. That's bad enough. The problem here is not just a government shutdown--it's a shutdown of the economy. That's what this causes. The way the American economy works is, when a person at the USDA or the FBI gets a paycheck, he goes out and he has his kitchen remodeled. The kitchen remodeler is then more likely to buy a house, so the real estate broker is more likely to earn a commission. Then she is more likely to buy a car, so the car salesman is more likely to earn his commission, and he's more likely to go buy a refrigerator. The person running the appliance store is more likely to hire more people at the store, and more truck drivers have work in delivering the appliances. On it goes or on it doesn't go. When the sequester was locked in, economists in this country predicted that a third of the projected economic growth wouldn't happen. They were right. When the latest growth figures came out, instead of growing at about 2.5 percent, the economy grew at 1.7. It's not a mystery as to why. The problem here is not simply the government shutdown--it's the shutdown of the economy that this represents. This bill will probably pass the House. It will not pass the Senate. It represents an obsession with the health care law rather than good faith negotiation. We should begin those good faith negotiations right now. We should have on the floor right now a proposal that Mr. Van Hollen has made for a very long time that says: let's get rid of the sequester for a period of time; let's not lay off the person at the National Guard Armory or the FBI or the USDA; and let's replace the spending cuts with a fair and honest set of proposals that would include things like taking tax breaks away from oil companies that are making billions of dollars a year. We are not getting a chance to vote on that today or tomorrow, and I suspect I know the reason why--because it would pass. It would keep the government running. It would further reduce the deficit. It would put more Americans back to work--but it doesn't fit the political script of the majority. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding, and I'm glad he's back with us. The purpose of this bill is to make it as hard as possible for a hardworking person to get health insurance for their family. So somewhere in America today there's a person working in a nursing home or a retail store or driving a schoolbus, and if their children got sick tonight, they could not take them to a hospital with an insurance card in their pocket; they'd have to pay for it whatever way they could, which is not at all. The new law says that that person, under most circumstances, starting October 1, can sign up for a health insurance policy as good as the ones that Members of Congress have, for a reasonable and affordable price, maybe $30 or $40 a week for that family. This is not someone on public assistance. This is not someone sitting around watching someone else pay their bills. This is a hardworking, taxpaying American. That person has to report their income. They have to follow the rules and do all the things that are needed to be done. This bill makes it as hard as possible for that person to do that, and that's why it should be defeated. So here we are again. This is attempt number--what number are we using today--44, 45, 46, whatever the number is. The government is going to shut down on September 30 if we don't pass a budget. The majority said it was going to bring that budget to the floor this morning, but they're not doing that. Instead, we're having attempt number 44 to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is not only a waste of the country's time, it's an imposition on hardworking people who finally deserve a break after all these years. Vote ``no'' on this unwise piece of legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the seven new members of the South Jersey Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame. The inductees were Reggie Lawrence, Phil Costa, Todd McNair, Brian Matera, Arnold Byrd, Mike McDevitt, and Jim Doyle. Reggie Lawrence has been a high school coach for sixteen years and is currently coaching at Willingboro. He has rebuilt the Willingboro program, which previously had a 0-10 record, into a local power which last year qualified for the South Jersey Group 2 playoffs. Mr. Lawrence has earned more than 100 victories during his coaching career at Camden, Pennsauken, Jackson Liberty, and Willingboro. Coach Lawrence has not only had an extremely successful coaching career, but he was also a star athlete at Camden High School. Phil Costa starred at Holy Cross High School and was named to the All South Jersey team. He later excelled at the University of Maryland and now plays for the Dallas Cowboys. He started in every game for the Cowboys in 2011 and was one of the best centers in the NFL. Although he was injured for the majority of the 2012 season, he recently signed a two-year contract extension and will be back on the field for the 2013 season. Todd McNair played at Temple University and then professionally for the Houston Oilers and the Kansas City Chiefs. In his career, McNair caught 254 passes with seven receiving touchdowns, and rushed for 803 yards and three touchdowns. He also averaged 18.6 yards per kickoff return. McNair ranks in the top 20 among Chiefs receivers with over 1,800 receiving yards. After retirement from professional football, McNair coached at Camden High School and was the running backs coach for both the Cleveland Browns and the University of Southern California. During his time at USC, he was widely recognized as one of the most effective recruiters in college football. Brian Matera is one of Pennsauken's legendary players. He was the Indians starting linebacker for three years, earned All South Jersey honors, and was nominated by Scholastic Magazine as an All American. He also played for the University of Maryland in three bowl games. In 1980, he even earned a tryout with the Philadelphia Eagles. Tragically, Brian Matera passed away in 1990 but his accomplishments will not be forgotten. Arnold Byrd earned the Oaks Award, one of the highest academic awards for a male student. He was also a member of the National Honor Society, and made All State and All South Jersey for football. He received both athletic and academic scholarship to Rutgers and in 1960 he was recognized as their most valuable football player. Mike McDevitt is known as one of South Jersey's top coaches. He currently serves as line coach at Haddonfield Memorial. He was previously an assistant line coach at Cherry Hill East, Pitman and Gloucester Catholic dating back to 1987. Coach McDevitt also served as Gloucester Catholic head coach from 1989-1993, making two appearances in state championship games. Finally, I would like to personally congratulate Jim Doyle, a dear friend and coach of my Alma Mater, Triton Regional High School. I am pleased to honor Coach Doyle for his distinguished service as coach and athletic director. For 35 years he coached football and track at Glassboro, Lenape, and Triton. As football coach, he earned a career record of 91-63-7 at Glassboro and Triton, including a perfect 8- 0 record in the 1968 season at Triton. Two of his top high school players went on to play football at the collegiate level for the University of Virginia and Rutgers University. Mr. Speaker, the contributions of these seven inductees to the football community and to South Jersey should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in expressing our gratitude for Reggie, Phil, Todd, Brian, Arnold, Mike, Jim, and their families as they celebrate their induction into the South Jersey Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Colleagues, somewhere in America today a family is going to get the devastating news you all dread about your children: they're going to hear that that lump in their daughter's stomach is cancer. And they're going to go home and they're going to have all the agony and they're going to have all of the unthinkable thoughts that parents are going to have in that situation, but they are going to be faced with another problem because they have no health insurance. Both the mom and the dad work. They make about $40,000 a year between the two of them. They don't get coverage at work, and they can't afford health insurance. So their agony is not just being worried about the health of their child, they are worried about the fact that if they give the child the care that she needs, they'll lose everything that they have and wind up in bankruptcy court. The Affordable Care Act says to that couple that starting January 1, for about $40 a week, they can have health insurance coverage as good as Members of Congress do. That's what the Affordable Care Act says. This bill repeals that for that family. Those who are prepared to vote for this bill should also be prepared to answer the following question: If you want to say to that family that their concern isn't important enough, what's your plan? What's your answer to them? Now, we'll hear that people have introduced bills and sent around letters. Here are the facts. It has been almost 1,000 days that the Republican Party has been back in control of the House of Representatives. The number of bills they have voted on to replace this law is zero. Zero. Forty times to repeal it; zero times to replace it. This debate is not about Republicans and Democrats; it's about that family with that daughter that has no health insurance if you repeal this law and pass this bill. This is no plan, this is no responsibility, and this is no way to deal with the concerns of middle class Americans. Vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I've sat and listened to the debate this morning and heard a lot of the slogans that we hear on this repeated again and again and again. I would simply return to the point that I made earlier: for a family that makes $40,000 a year, has two adults working, and two children, that doesn't get coverage at work, which is true for many, many Americans--maybe 35 million Americans have a situation something like that--the Affordable Care Act says that starting January 1, for about $40 a week they can buy health insurance from a private insurance company as good as the Members of Congress have. What is the plan from the other side, since they're repealing this? This bill takes that away. What is the plan from the other side to provide for that family? Now, they'll talk about bills they have introduced and letters they have written. There's not been one bill, one vote, one day that would answer that question. After a thousand days of the Republican majority, the American people eagerly await that answer.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, our intent is not to promote institutionalized godlessness. Our intent is to promote constitutional fealty. When a young man or young woman raises their right hand and swears allegiance to this country and agrees to serve in the Armed Forces, they do not consign themselves to serve as a second-class citizen, irrespective of their faith or their life philosophy. It is wrong to say to a soldier who comes from such a tradition, that he or she, if they have an issue on which they're troubled, must go to a mental health professional in order to receive counseling, rather than someone who comes from their philosophical faith or tradition. The other problem with this amendment is it frankly second guesses the military leadership of this country, the Pentagon of this country, the Defense Department, and says that even if they would decide that such a decision would be appropriate, they're prohibited from doing so. Our law recognizes that our Constitution establishes no religion. We should have equality of treatment for our Armed Forces. I'd urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the bravery and sacrifice of sixteen of my constituents who have been killed in action overseas and were recently honored at the Harleigh Cemetery this past Memorial Day: Corporal Terry P. Allen, Lance Corporal Curtis Christensen, Captain Gregory Dalessio, Specialist Anthony J. Dixon, Sergeant Michael Egan, Private First Class Adam Froehlick, Lance Corporal Jon T. Hicks, Jr., Sergeant Jeremy Kane, Lieutenant Jason Mann, Captain Maria Ortiz, Captain Charles D. Robinson, Corporal Marc T. Ryan, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Spahr, Petty Officer First Class David M. Tapper, Staff Sergeant Joseph Weiglein, and Private Robert White. They join the ranks of countless Americans before them who fought on behalf of this country. These sixteen service members gave their lives in service not only to New Jersey, but the nation as a whole. They will not be forgotten. Since before this country was even founded, young Americans have stepped forward to defend its ideals. They have fought with distinction in every corner of the globe. From the beaches of Normandy to the deserts of the Middle East, they have stood shoulder to shoulder in defense of freedom. Unfortunately, not all have returned. These young service members laid down their lives in the preservation of liberty. They chose to devote themselves to the defense of this country and its people. The patriotism and resolve displayed by these sixteen men and women stand as a model for the rest of us. Their service should be mirrored; their sacrifice honored. Mr. Speaker, the decision of these young men and women to serve their country will not go unrecognized, nor will their sacrifice fade from memory. I want to personally extend my condolences to their loved ones, who have also sacrificed greatly. We as a nation owe these sixteen brave men and women, and their families, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if a school said that African American children could not take advanced math, it would be wrong and illegal. I think most of us agree if a school said that Jewish children couldn't enroll in a certain program, that would be wrong--and it is illegal. In most States in this country, though, if a school says that a child who is gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, or perceived to be, there is no legal protection for that child. Now, this is not simply a theoretical problem. LGBT children have been bullied and harassed and mistreated across this country. The stories are heartbreaking, and they often end in family tragedy, like suicide. There is a serious proposal that would remedy this injustice that was sponsored by 156 Members of the House of Representatives and there was an attempt to make that in order for debate and a vote. It should have been, and it was not. This is a serious issue. Frankly, unless the majority leadership agrees there would be a separate and independent chance to move that bill, this was the chance to move that bill. No child should be left behind. Certainly, a child should not be left behind because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity. That should extend to their sexual orientation as well, and we should have had a chance to vote on that. For that reason and many others, I oppose this rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, 11 years after Brown v. Board of Education presented an unfulfilled promise, in 1965 the Congress passed a law that said that we should have Federal resources for the children that were achieving the least in America's most difficult schools, many of whom were children of color. For 35 years after that, the essential strategy of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was to send Federal money to these schools and hope that they tried their best. It didn't work. In 2001, in a truly bipartisan effort led by Chairman Miller at the time; Speaker Boehner, who was chairman of the committee at the time; the late Senator Kennedy; President George W. Bush and others got together and said, We're going to keep the resources flowing, but we're going to expect results. We're going to measure whether children can read and calculate, and we're going to see what happens. In the first 5 years after that law passed, there were more gains than had been made in the previous 15 years for African American and Latino children. We hit a wall in about 2005. Rather than think about why that wall was hit and how we could work together to fix it, this bill goes in a whole different direction backwards to 1965. This bill essentially says: no strings attached, here's billions of dollars to local schools. We trust and hope that you will do your best. I think most of them will. But history shows that some of them won't. And when they leave behind African American children, leave behind Latino children, leave behind children with disabilities, that's not good enough for them, and that's not good enough for our country. We should oppose this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, we oppose this amendment because we believe it is redundant and ideological. It truly is a solution in search of a problem. Not one word of existing Federal law, and as I read it, not one word of the underlying bill, authorizes the Federal Department of Education to create curriculum, any sort of curriculum for States and for local school districts. As a matter of fact, I would offer the author of the amendment just this one thought, and I know he is proceeding with a good-faith intent to make sure that the day never comes when there is a national curriculum. I think in some ways this amendment is contrary to that goal because it implies that the amendment is necessary. The amendment is unnecessary if, as is the case, there is no present authority for a national curriculum in Federal law, and there is no existing authority under the proposed bill for a national curriculum. Adding this may actually raise the ambiguity that there is something in existing Federal law or in the bill that would authorize a national curriculum. So I think that this is simply a statement to try to solve a problem that does not exist in present law or in this bill, and I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a real leader in education.

Mr. ANDREWS. It is my understanding that the majority side has yielded back its time, and we have how much time left?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time in closing. The problem with the underlying bill is not that it tries to impose a national curriculum. The problem is that we believe it ignores a national interest. The national interest is in articulating high standards for every student in our country, and then leaving to the creative energies of local educators and families the best way to reach those high standards. The failure of the underlying bill to reach that objective is the reason that business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, education groups, civil rights groups, and disabled advocates have united in an unusual coalition, frankly, to oppose the underlying legislation. We think that the underlying bill is flawed. We think that this amendment flaws that flaw and respectfully would ask for a ``no'' vote on the offered amendment and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Arthur Glatfelter, Jr. Mr. Glatfelter was a pillar of his community, a kind and generous man, and a leader who sought to make the world a better place. In addition to his work with philanthropies, Mr. Glatfelter was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. Mr. Glatfelter fought for his country during World War II, serving in the United States Marine Corps in the Pacific. After the war he continued his life of service. Mr. Glatfelter was a leader in many philanthropic groups, and served on the boards of multiple organizations in his community. He was an original member of the board of directors as well as the founding director of the Congressional Fire Services Institute. Mr. Glatfelter remained an active member of the CFSI until stepping down in 2008. Other groups he worked with included the Cultural Alliance of York County, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, the York Habitat for Humanity, and the Farm and Natural Lands Trust of York County. Mr. Glatfelter was also the founder of the Glatfelter Insurance Group. Mr. Speaker, Art Glatfelter was a shining example of community service and family values. He was not only a good friend of mine, but an outstanding friend of the emergency services and first responder communities all across America. He will be missed.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, one of the gentlemen who spoke a few minutes ago said the facts should not be twisted. I completely agree. Here are some facts that the House and the country should have under consideration as we debate this bill. We hear repeatedly on the other side that the Affordable Care Act is a job-killing health care law. In the months prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the economy lost 6.9 million jobs. In the months since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the economy has gained 6.5 million jobs. If it were true that the Affordable Care Act is a job-killing health care law, then why did the number of jobs go up and not down? Second, we hear that the Affordable Care Act is responsible for an explosion in health care premiums. Today, the State of New York reported that the bids on offering coverage through the new New York health insurance exchange have come in. The typical New Yorker who buys health care for himself or herself will have a premium 50 percent lower than they do today. Similar numbers have been reflected in California, Oregon, Washington, and other States around the country. If it were true that the Affordable Care Act has led to an explosion of premiums, how do we explain what has happened in New York, California, Oregon, Washington, and other States? Finally, we hear the conclusion that this is a socialist takeover of the health care system by the government. Well, here's the way it works. A person who goes into the exchange receives a voucher, a tax credit, and shops among competing private health insurance plans and chooses the one that they like best for their family, much in the nature of a Pell Grant or an FHA loan when one is borrowing a house. The House deserves the facts. It is not factual that jobs have gone down since the law was passed. They have gone up. It is not factual that premiums have skyrocketed. In the places where the law has been implemented, they have gone down. Finally, a government takeover is false. This is a consumer takeover of health care away from the insurance companies.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. ANDREWS. I most certainly am.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this final amendment, which would not delay consideration of the bill, if passed, is to be sure that no one who's covered by their employer today suffers as a result of this bill. But make no mistake about it, the purpose of the underlying bill is to unravel the Affordable Care Act thread by thread and make sure that it collapses under its own weight. Make no mistake about it further, our purpose is forgotten around here if that's what this Congress does. We are not a debating society. We are not a perpetual political campaign. We are a legislative body that makes decisions that affect the real lives of real people in very significant ways. It is very important that all Members understand the consequences of what is being done here today. There are a lot of Americans whose lives are not being impacted here today: Among the 11 million unemployed in this country, they are hoping that next week might be the first week they get a paycheck in a long time. This House, consistent with its practice, is doing nothing. For the members of families with student loans, there are over 5 million of them who have seen their student loan rates double on the 1st of July. This House, consistent with its practice, is doing nothing for them today. For the millions of Americans who are waiting for our economy to be lifted and their lives to be lifted out of the doldrums and the shadows of an antiquated immigration law, where the other body, with 68 percent voting in favor of a change in that law, consistent with its practice, this House is doing nothing, once again, for those Americans today. But if this bill and its unraveling attempt passes, this House is doing a lot to affect a lot of other Americans: If everyone doesn't participate in paying for the health care system, the woman who has breast cancer or the little boy who has asthma, they can be denied a health insurance policy because of their preexisting condition, or it will become so expensive they can't afford it. This bill affects them. The person who overpaid for their health insurance policy, if they're one of the millions of Americans who've gotten a rebate since the Affordable Care Act went into effect to stop insurance companies from overcharging Americans, if these folks have their way and that's repealed, this bill will certainly affect them because they'll lose that rebate. If they are among the millions of senior citizens who have been able to go for an annual checkup for a cancer screening, an annual checkup for their general health and not pay anything for it and find dreaded diseases before they take control of their lives and recover from those diseases, this bill most certainly will affect those Americans because it will repeal those benefits. For those seniors who have been caught in the so-called doughnut hole created by--the Medicare program created by the then-majority a few years ago--who've seen their drug coverage costs drop because of rebates that help them offset that coverage, they will most certainly be affected by this bill because those rebates will disappear, and their coverage will go back up and cost them more again. If they're one of the thousands or even millions of young people who are able to stay on their parents' health insurance policies until they're 26 years of age, their lives will be affected by this bill because they'll lose that benefit and it will evaporate. This Congress has a real responsibility to Americans who want to see us move beyond this endless debate, this 38th attempted repeal of this law, who want to see us move beyond this and get to work on the real problems that confront the country. Let's put Americans back to work. Let's drop the cost of a college education. Let's fix our broken immigration system. Let's get to work on repairing the Voting Rights Act that was vandalized by the United States Supreme Court just a few weeks ago. These are problems to which we should turn our attention, but here we are again, the 38th consecutive attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The first 37 failed, and so will the 38th. The right vote for our constituents and the American people is to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit and ``no'' on this underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, I am.

Mr. ANDREWS. The purpose of this amendment, which if passed would let us still proceed to final passage, is to provide protection for important consumer protections that I believe this bill puts in jeopardy. There's probably not a Member of this Chamber who doesn't agree with the proposition that if a woman with breast cancer or a child with asthma goes to buy an insurance policy, I don't think many people here think they should be denied that policy because of their preexisting condition, or charged two or three times as much money because they've had breast cancer or asthma or they're a woman or they've been pregnant. Almost everyone I hear talk about health care says Well, sure, I'm for getting rid of discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But I think we all know this: you can't accomplish that if you don't have a mechanism to keep costs from exploding for everybody else in the insurance marketplace. And, ladies and gentlemen, there's only two ways to do that. The first way is to have a public fund that buys down those premium costs for people. With all due respect, the majority tried to do that and couldn't pass their bill on the floor. The second way to do it is to give everyone who can afford it the responsibility to buy health insurance for themselves. The way that we create a situation in which we can say to that woman with breast cancer, Yes, you can have a health insurance policy, and it doesn't have to be three times as much in price, or the way that we can say to that young boy with asthma, Yes, you can have a health insurance policy, and it doesn't have to be three times as much in price, is to get everyone covered. If you don't get everyone covered, then the whole thing unravels. And when it unravels, so do the other protections in the Affordable Care Act. The preexisting condition discrimination we all say we want to prevent happens anyway. The family whose child has a $1 million or $2 million chemotherapy bill runs up against a lifetime policy limit and they're on their own again. That expires, too. The protection for young men and young women who seek coverage on their parents' policy, that unravels, too. We go back to a day when the health care of the American people is in the clutches of the insurance industry and not decided between patients and their families and their physicians. We have had this argument 38 times before on this floor. But this argument has taken place outside this floor as well. Last June, the litigants went to the United States Supreme Court and said this law was no good because it was unconstitutional. But the United States Supreme Court said, Yes, it is, and we're not going backwards. Last year, two Presidential candidates traveled all over this country. One called for this law's repeal. The other stood by this law's enforcement. Last November, the American people spoke and they said, We're not going backward. Well, here we are again, and the choice is backward or forward. Make no mistake about it, if the underlying bill passes, the law unravels and all the protections people say they want unravel with it. And we go back to the day when American health care was run by insurance companies and not by consumers and providers. The choice, ladies and gentlemen, is backward or forward. I say we do not go backward to a day when insurance companies ran everything. We go forward. And when that woman with breast cancer goes to apply for that health insurance policy, the answer is no longer, Ma'am, I'm sorry, you're not eligible. You had cancer one day. The answer is, Ma'am, here is your policy. Here is your health security. Here is your independence from losing everything you had because you got sick. The American people are better than this repeal. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.