Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. In the spring of 2007 at the Crandall Canyon Mine, retreat mining began, and when they started the retreat mining on the north side of the mountain, there were indications that there could be trouble. There were literally noises, sounds, that say there could be trouble. So they stopped. In June of 2007, the company conducting that mining went to the mine safety regulators, the Federal Government, and said we want to now do on the south side of the mountain what we stopped doing on the north side of the mountain. In just over a week, 9 days as I recall, the Federal regulators said go ahead and do it. How much care could they have taken in that analysis in that short period of time? Tragically, in August of 2007, nine people lost their lives. Here's what this bill would change. It would say that the next time a mining company submits a retreat mining plan, they've got to have a computer model of what might happen when they start. They've got to send people from the mine safety agency to the mine to watch that it's being done the right way, and they've got to look at every possible technology that could be used to protect and save people's lives. Tonight, nine families have an empty chair at the dinner table because of the tragedy that occurred at Crandall Canyon. I can't assure any of those people that we would avoid a future tragedy, but we have to try, and this bill is an intelligent, good-faith effort in that regard. It deserves the vote of every Democrat and every Republican. It deserves to become law.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time. I rise in strong support of this legislation. The slogan that we should support our troops is given life and reality by this bill, by paying them well, by equipping them well, and by supporting them in every respect. This bill deserves the support of each and every Member of this body. I also echo the remarks of my friend from New Jersey with respect to the hard work that has been done to be sure that Americans who have been victimized by the state-sponsored terrorism have adequate means of redress in our courts. This is the issue that gave rise to the Presidential veto. I happen to agree that the compromise in front of us makes imminent sense. The general rule in American law is that when you sue someone, you don't have the right to freeze their assets or go after their assets unless you win a judgment. We make an exception to that general rule in the case of assets owned by states which are involved in state- sponsored terrorism. It is the wisdom of the compromise here that that provision remains in effect for all of the other states that are involved in state-sponsored terrorism, with the exception of Iraq, which was under the regime of Saddam Hussein. It leaves to the discretion of the President a waiver to determine whether claims against that regime under Saddam Hussein should go forward, and how they should go forward. This is an issue that I think the Congress ought to reconsider and revisit in 2008 and beyond. I, frankly, believe that an American who has been the victim of improper or illegal conduct under the old regime should not go without legal redress. That is a lingering question that is as a result of this compromise, but it's a wise and necessary compromise that would permit us to do what we should have done a long time ago for the men and women who serve this country so well. So I congratulate the chairman and Ranking Member Hunter as authors of the compromise. I appreciate their hard work in bringing this bill back to life. Happily, I will support it, and look forward to doing even greater things in 2008.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend from Ohio for yielding. I would like to thank my friend, Mr. Lewis, for his hard work on this legislation throughout the process, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), and obviously our chairman, Mr. Rangel, and other members of the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. Tubbs Jones in particular. When we started working on this project, it was a matter of simple fairness to Americans who sold a home under difficult circumstances. Now, unfortunately, the problem has grown into one of economic urgency because our economy is in trouble today in large part because of a drop in housing prices and housing values. And one of the reasons that we would have a glut on that market would be if people have to dump their properties on the market because they can't get a workout on the loans that they have because it would raise their taxes to come to a different arrangement with their lender. Through the wisdom of the committee, we are fixing this law in such a way that will encourage people to work out an arrangement with their mortgagee to work out a way they can pay their loans and stay in their homes. And if they stay in their home, we won't have that glut of supply in the housing market. If we don't have that glut of supply on the housing market, prices will stabilize and not drop, which will mean more Americans have more home equity, more Americans have economic confidence, and our economy can rebound. So I want to thank all those both on the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle for making this project a reality, in particular the staff of the Ways and Means Committee, for their hard work in making this a reality and urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, with governing comes responsibility. The responsible vote on this rule and this bill is ``yes.'' The minority has talked about responsibility for the military. They are right. That is why this body and the other body passed a Defense Appropriations bill, $459 billion to support the military. The other side talks about responsibility for reducing the deficit. They didn't reduce the deficit when they were in the majority. We are reducing it by passing a budget that puts us back on the path to a balanced budget. We also have a responsibility to listen to the concerns that are being raised by the men and women that we represent. They are worried about gangs and drugs. So this bill puts 34 percent more money into drug courts, nearly doubles the amount of money being spent on police support programs around the country. They are worried about porous borders and people coming into the country illegally. So this bill puts 15 percent more into customs and border enforcement. They are worried about high heating costs, being unable to pay their utility bills. So this bill puts 21 percent more into the program that helps people pay their utility bills. Finally, there is all this talk about supporting and saluting our veterans. This bill stops talking and starts acting with a request that matches that which the veterans service organizations of this country asked us for, the largest increase in veterans health care in the history of the country. The responsible vote is ``yes.'' The irresponsible political course is to complain. Let's do the country's business, pass this rule, and pass this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding, and I congratulate our Chairman Skelton on his great job in getting this bill done and our ranking member, Mr. Hunter. People criticize the Congress, I think justifiably, because they think we don't get anything done and we can't ever agree with each other. Well, this bill shows that we can get things done and we can agree with each other. There are many strongly held opinions about the war in Iraq, pro and con. But I think there is unanimity. We should show the people who wear the uniform of this country our appreciation by raising their pay. And this bill does that 3.5 percent across the board. I think there is unanimity that when we send our young men and women into harm's way, they should have the best protection. And this bill puts $17.6 billion, the highest ever, into up-armored vehicles and protective gear for the troops in the field. I think there is unanimity that says that when someone is wounded in the service of this country, he or she should never be forgotten, ever, when they are in the VA health care system. So there is unanimity here for the Wounded Warrior Act. This bill is well worth supporting because it shows the broad support in this Congress for the men and women who serve this country, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, this resolution affirms the obvious and avoids the necessary. It is obvious that the common goal of the United States, the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, is to avoid a failed state in Iraq. The Senate bill affirms this, the House bill affirms this, and I am supremely confident that the final conference report will confirm it as well. The issue, as my friend the gentlewoman from California said, is how do we avoid a failed state in Iraq. Sadly, the record gives us many examples of what not to do. When General Shinseki told the administration that his recommendation was to put 300,000 troops on the ground after Saddam fell, and the administration ignored that request, that is what not to do; when leaders who had studied Iraq in our State Department, our intelligence agencies and our Defense Department said abolishing the Iraqi Army and the Baathist Party in its entirety is the wrong thing to do, abolishing the Iraqi Army, abolishing the Baathist Party in its entirety was the wrong thing to do, it increased the risk of a failed state. Now I heard my friend, the ranking member, talk about 11,000 Sunni generals, and he is right. The top of the Iraqi Army, the erstwhile Iraqi Army, the top of the Baathist Party should have either been put on trial, put in prison, or, at the very least, removed from those institutions. But the 85 to 90 percent who ran the sewer system and the train system and the bureaucracy of Iraq should not have been fired all at once. It was not the recommendation of the Secretary of State, it was not the recommendation of the intelligence community, but it's what we did, and it's how to create a failed state. When voices within our government and around the world said that the right way to transition from Saddam's corrupt and evil regime to a new day was an internationally supervised political process, not listening to those voices was the wrong thing to do, and it increased the risk of a failed state. So, yes, we know all sorts of things. We have learned all kinds of lessons about what not to do. What should we do? Well, I think what we should do is insist that the Iraqi politicians do what American troops have done with such excellence, to execute the job they have been given. We are thankful that the level of violence has been reduced. We are very grateful for this, and we understand that the credit for that largely goes to the Americans in uniform and to their Iraqi partners fighting with them. We are very thankful for that result. But we are also very mindful that the Iraqi politicians who have been given a golden opportunity to bring peace and stability to their country have utterly failed to do so. They have not passed a law dividing up the proceeds of their oil industry; they have not guaranteed minority rights in their government; they have not set up and established provincial elections and provincial governments. They have utterly failed to establish a stable government, because we have stood there and continued to hold their coats and let them suffer the delusion that America's sons and daughters will stay there forever. If you want to avoid a failed state in Iraq, change that delusionary perception. Say to the Iraqi politicians, the clock is running. The time is drawing nigh when our sons and our daughters will no longer referee your civil war. Negotiate an end to it, stop it, build a stable government. That is how to avoid a failed state. That is the policy underlying the policy of this majority. Frankly, it's a policy reflected in this excellent Armed Services authorization bill, which I hope will promptly be on the floor, promptly be on the President's desk, and promptly get about the business of serving the people who serve us so well.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to a woman of faith and strength, the leader of our House, our Speaker, the gentlelady from California.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this well-thought-out amendment from Chairman Miller and Mr. Stupak. I think it quite fairly addresses some of the concerns people have raised. First, with respect to religion, on October 3, 2007, the president of Wheaton College wrote to our colleague, Mr. Walberg from Michigan. President Litfin worried about the scope of the religious exemption in the underlying bill, and here is what he said: ``I urge you to remove the problematic religious definition language currently in ENDA and ensure that the act categorically exempts religious organizations as in section 702(a) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act.'' Here is what the amendment in front of us says: ``This act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a),'' precisely what was asked for. Second, I have heard concerns that there is preferential treatment or special rights for persons protected under this bill. The gentleman and others should read page 8 of the underlying bill, subparagraph (f), which is captioned ``No Preferential Treatment or Quotas.'' Let me read from it: ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to require or to permit any covered entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or any group because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation of such individual.'' It's helpful to read the bill. Finally, we have heard suggestions that somehow the institution of marriage is undermined. It's very important to read the second part of Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak's amendment, subsection (c) and I will read it: ``As used in this Act, the term `married' or `marry' refer to marriage as such term as defined in section 7 of title I,'' which is the Defense of Marriage Act which explicitly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. These were concerns that were raised. They are met. I respect and appreciate the fact that the ranking member of the full committee will vote ``yes'' on this amendment. So will I, and so will an overwhelming majority so we can proceed to passage of this bill with a strong bipartisan majority. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, the record should reflect some accuracy in the point two of our friends just made that the proposition that the display of a religious artifact such as a Bible in and of itself creates a hostile work environment. There is not a shred of that in this bill, nor is there a shred of case law anywhere in the 42-year history of title VII that supports that claim. The majority certainly is welcome to supplement the record if we are wrong. I just don't see it.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to an icon in the protection of human and civil rights in our country, a hero for our generation, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman and friend for yielding. Madam Chairman, we very often hear people say in this House that they oppose discrimination. Today there's a chance to do something more than just say that you oppose discrimination; you can vote against it. I listened to the questions raised by my friend from California, the ranking member of the full committee, and I would like to address them. My friend says that there are burdensome new mandates imposed by this bill. That is not the case. If an employer has 15 or fewer employees, they are not covered by it at all. And there's really nothing burdensome about the idea that you can't refuse to hire or fire or mistreat someone because of their sexual orientation. That's no more of a burden than having the same rules based on race or religion or nationality. My friend says there are highly subjective measures, and he points to the use of the word ``perceived'' discrimination. He says that when we ban discrimination based on perception of sexual orientation, it creates too much confusion. The reality is that precisely the same legal concept has been part of our Federal law since 1989 under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Listen to this. I know the word ``perceived'' is not in the ADA, but the legal concept is the same. One Federal judge in New York heard a case, and that judge says that the case was based on ``harassment and discrimination based on her perceived disability.'' I'm not sure this judge is qualified, but most of the Senate does because it was Judge Michael Mukasey, who is now the President's nominee to be Attorney General of the United States. This doesn't create new confusion; it simply restates an existing principle. On free exercise of religion, the gentleman from California is correct. There was some debate about the proper scope of the free exercise provisions in the underlying bill. Mr. Miller's amendment, which we will hear shortly, imports precisely the same standard that has existed for the exercise of religion for the last 42 years under title VII. The gentleman raises questions about marriage and says this is a radical attempt or a first step in a radical attempt to redefine marriage. Mr. Miller's amendment will make it clear that precisely the opposite is true. Mr. Miller's amendment will take the language that was approved by the House, signed by President Clinton, in the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines for Federal law purposes marriage as one man and one woman and import it into this bill. Finally, the gentleman says this is a sweeping departure from civil rights laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a departure from civil rights laws. It's an inclusion of millions of Americans who should have been included for a very long time. It's a question of simple fairness. It's a question that says if you are a computer programmer or a bus driver or a carpenter, your job situation should be based on how well you drive the bus or how well you can program the computer, not on your sexual orientation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, we have two speakers remaining, including the Speaker.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the majority will have a chance to work its will, the House will have a chance to work its will on his proposition, and we will make a majority decision and he will either win or lose, which I think is fair and within the rules.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize a point of agreement and a point of disagreement: There is a broad and growing agreement that members of the transgendered community should receive the full protection of the Federal law, and many of us are committed to work to achieve that day as soon as we possibly can. But there is a strong point of disagreement that I have heard from the minority side about the procedure on which we are taking up this bill. We had a vigorous debate in the full committee about this bill and three concerns were raised. One was the issue of the transgendered community, and Ms. Baldwin has in order an amendment, which she will decide the disposition of, so that issue can be raised. The second is the scope of the religious exemption, which my friends vigorously debated, and Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak's manager's amendment raises that very same issue, and there will be a debate and there will be a disposition. Finally, there was some discussion as to the impact of this bill on the question of the definition of marriage, and the amendment of Mr. Miller and Mr. Stupak will make in order a debate and a disposition of that issue as well. The purpose of the House, with all due respect to my friends on the other side, the purpose of the House is not to debate every issue for as long as it takes until everyone is done talking. The purpose of the House is to have a fair and reasonable proceeding and to decide, and that is what we are going to do here. I would just say one final thing to my friend, and I know he is going to ask me to yield, and I will do so if he agrees to yield to me when my time has expired. But my friend speaks with great enthusiasm to bringing to a vote on the floor the question of transgendered people. I would ask my friend why, for the previous 12 years that his group has had the majority here, they never brought the issue to the floor during those 12 years if they have such intense feelings in favor. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. So, Mr. Speaker, you're 6 months away from your 58th birthday, and the place where you have worked for 25 years closes and you have no health insurance. So you dip into your savings and you figure out a way to keep yourself in the plan that you were in by paying for it largely with your own money. Under present law, when you hit your 59th birthday, if you don't have another job with health insurance, you're out, and you have got 6 years to go until you qualify for Medicare. We are changing that in this bill. Here's what this bill says. That person I just described, if they can figure out a way to stretch their savings and stretch their dollars until they're 65 years old, can enroll in Medicare and never have a gap where their family is left unprotected, with their own money by and large. Now, the credits that are generously extended here, we wish we could do more, but this is a program that makes common sense for the person who is too young to retire and too old to start all over again. It's the person who's working with a good job and health care and good benefits, who's now working part-time at a retail store because that's the best he or she can do. What is wrong with that? This is an opportunity for the Members of this Congress to stand up for forgotten Americans who built this country, raised their families and paid their taxes. This should not be a Republican and Democratic issue. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this very well-thought-out bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my dear friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, why would someone not vote for health insurance for 10 million American children? There is the excuse that the bill covers illegal aliens. Read section 605 of the bill; it doesn't. There is the excuse that it covers adults, not children. Read section 112 of the bill, which is called termination of coverage of nonpregnant childless adults. There is the excuse that it covers a lot of wealthy kids, but there is the fact that 91.3 percent of the children covered come from families that make less than $40,000 a year, and the rest live in States that are very, very expensive to live in, like mine in New Jersey. Then there is the excuse that, well, it's bad for the budget somehow, unlike the $109 billion they want to send to Iraq. But the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that over 10 years this bill saves $200 million for the Federal Treasury. Ladies and gentlemen, no more excuses, vote ``yes''.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and his staff especially for their great work in bringing this to the floor. Thank you very much. And to Mr. McCrery and to my friend Mr. Lewis for showing that when people from two parties come together in support of a good idea, it can happen. This is what this bill is about: A person buys a house for $150,000 and has a $140,000 mortgage. And then bad times hit the neighborhood and the person can only sell the house for $130,000, but they still owe $140,000 on the mortgage. So they go to closing and they sell the house, but even after all the proceeds of the sale are paid, they still owe money on the mortgage. Now, someone is only going to do this because they have lost their job or had a health crisis or some other family crisis. By definition, this is an American family in some trouble. If their lender says that they are going to write off that $10,000 that still is owed on the mortgage, if the lender says we are not going to bother to chase this person, usually because there is nothing to recover from, under present law the IRS would treat that family as having $10,000 worth of income. Now, they have no money in their checking account to pay it. They have no means to go earn the money. They owe a tax on money they never saw. This is unfair, and it exacerbates the problem we see in the mortgage market right now. So Republicans and Democrats came together. We are thankful for the leadership of Chairman Rangel, and we have before us now a bill that will address in a fair and targeted way this problem. I would also add I do appreciate the pay-for. I think we should pay for what we do here. And what this bill does is close a loophole. It basically says that everybody can get the $500,000 exclusion for the house they actually live in, but you can't take that for a property you don't live in. That seems pretty fair to me. So, again, I thank people on both sides of the aisle for their support. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would like to thank the cochairman of the Iran Working Group, my good friend, Mr. Kirk, for his efforts and the staff's efforts. And I would associate myself with the remarks that Mark made about the staff members who worked so hard on this. I'd like to thank our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Sherman, and ranking members on the other side for their help. A prison must be a terribly lonely and solitary place. And I think there is no more lonely and solitary place on the face of the Earth than an Iranian prison, because in an Iranian prison you live in a place where there is no due process, there is no right to be heard, there is no sunlight, there is no chance to address your grievances. Mr. Speaker, as we meet today, two men, Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo sit in that solitary confinement. Their crime is speaking up for the members of the group for which they work. Their offense is trying to organize and represent the men and women next to whom they work. This is taken universally as a human right, the right to speak up for better working conditions, for fairness in the workplace. It is a right that Iran recognizes as a signatory to the International Labor Organization, and Iran is bound to follow the core principles of the ILO. Clearly, Iran is not doing so as we meet today. For more than 6 months, Mr. Salehi has been confined in a prison. For more than 3 months, Mr. Osanloo has been confined in a prison. It is my hope that this resolution today will have the Members of this House, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, joining the voices of labor leaders around the world as expressed on August 9 saying to the Government of Iran that this imprisonment is unjustified. This is an egregious abuse of human rights. These men should be released. Their medical needs should be tended to, and justification should be given for the unlawful and inhuman incarceration of these individuals. This is a larger question than the political relationship between the United States and Iran. It is a larger question than labor law and the right to organize. This is a fundamental question of human rights. Innocent, infirm people should not be held against their will with no rights and no right to address their grievances. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this House can and should join together today to rise up in opposition to this inhuman practice. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the bravery, compassion, and selflessness of U.S. Army Captain Maria Ines Ortiz, from Camden, New Jersey who was killed in Baghdad, Iraq on July 10, 2007. Captain Ortiz was assigned to the 28th Combat Support Hospital, 3rd Medical Command in Baghdad's ``Green Zone.'' Her death marks the first combat related casualty of an army nurse since the Vietnam War. Captain Ortiz was born in Camden, New Jersey but spent most of her childhood in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Her career in army medicine began in 1991 when she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve. Captain Ortiz's first two years of active duty included service in Honduras, South Korea, and eventually Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington DC. These experiences helped to solidify her resolve to become a registered nurse, a goal she achieved in 1999, earning a degree in nursing from the University of Puerto Rico. After subsequently being commissioned as an Army officer, Captain Ortiz worked as a dialysis nurse at Walter Reed for 2 years then served as chief nurse at the Kirk U.S. Army Health Clinic for 18 months before being sent to Iraq last fall. She had a smile that lit up the hallways and won the hearts of the medical staff in every hospital she worked. If a patient required extra attention, she worked late. If a colleague was feeling down, she was there to comfort and support that colleague. Maria Iris Ortiz is a true hero in every sense of the word. She will be remembered for her exceptional devotion. Madam Speaker, I commend Captain Maria Iris Ortiz for her selflessness and courage in making the ultimate sacrifice to her country.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise in support of this legislation. In 2002, 5 years ago, NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, discovered a link between a dreadful disease called popcorn lung that literally eats away at the tissue of a man or a woman's lung and diacetyl. A lot has happened in the 5 years since then. Hundreds of people have been severely sickened. A significant number of people have died. In 2003, NIOSH recommended that manufacturers using diacetyl adopt certain standards to protect workers against popcorn lung disease. In 2004, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade association of the affected industry, voluntarily adopted certain recommendations that employers and manufacturers do what they could to protect workers against popcorn lung. Very recently, under the leadership of Subcommittee Chairwoman Woolsey, who called attention to the issue, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections drafted a piece of legislation. Some good things happened. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association said, ``We agree with the legislation. We want OSHA to act to protect these workers as a matter of law, not a matter of courtesy.'' The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association was joined by the industrial hygienists, the experts in this matter, by the physicians, the American College of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, by the public health experts, the American Public Health Association, by the voice of organized labor, the AFL-CIO, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the Teamsters, the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union and the American Society of Safety Engineers. So, the manufacturers agree that OSHA ought to act, the physicians agree that OSHA ought to act, the industrial hygienists agree that OSHA ought to act, the labor unions agree that OSHA ought to act, and the American Association of Safety Engineers agrees that OSHA ought to act. All these things have happened in the last 5 years. But one thing has not happened. OSHA has not acted. So, today, we will act. This is a case of administrative malpractice. This is a case of an administrative agency that is given the responsibility under the law to protect working Americans. After 5 years of evidence, after the unanimous judgment of doctors, hygienists, the trade association, organized labor, after 5 years of unanimous judgment that it is time for OSHA to act, OSHA still has not acted. Now, the normal course, Mr. Chairman, is to wait for the administrative agency to make up its mind. We have already followed that course. We have waited for 5 years as hundreds of people have been sickened and a significant number of people have passed on. The time to wait is over. The time to act is now. I urge our Republican and Democratic colleagues to join with doctors, industrial hygienists, the manufacturers association, organized labor, and the Public Health Association and say to OSHA, stop this administrative malpractice. Enact a standard and protect these workers against this dreadful disease. I would like to congratulate Chairman Woolsey, Chairman Miller and the other leaders in this effort and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jirair S. Hovnanian, a successful family and businessman who started a construction company in New Jersey over 40 years ago. Mr. Hovnanian is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1952, after emigrating from Kirkuk, Iraq. His company, J.S. Hovnanian & Sons, built more than 6,000 homes, mainly in Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties. To his family he was known as a generous nurturer, who pursued the American dream. Mr. Hovnanian started his company in 1964 after splitting with a company he started with his three brothers. In recognition of his success, the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations presented Mr. Hovnanian with the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 2006 for his numerous contributions to the country. Mr. Hovnanian's life of service is worthy of admiration, and in addition to being a constituent and colleague, I am proud to call Mr. Hovnanian a friend. Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Hovnanian today for all that he has done for the First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I was meeting with constituents and was detained from voting during Thursday, September 6, 2007. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall vote: rollcall 876.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez for winning the 2007 Judge John F. Gerry Award. The Camden County Bar Association marks Judge Gerry's life for his outstanding humanitarian spirit and integrity, in which Mr. Rodriguez greatly exemplifies. The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez is a Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He is currently a member of the board of trustees for LaSalle University. In addition, he has been a lecturer for the past 37 years for the Professional Trial Lawyers Seminar. He has been distinguished in an impressive amount of honorary doctor of law degrees from St. Peter's College, 1972; Rutgers University, 1974; Seton Hall University, 1974; Montclair State College, 1985; and Kean College, 1985. Furthermore, for ``Distinguished Service in the Cause of Justice,'' Judge Rodriguez received the Trial Bar Award in 1981 from the Trial Attorneys of New Jersey. In 1985, he accepted the Karen Ann Quinlan Center of Hope Award, ``Friend of Hospice.'' His Honor was named ``Man of the Year'' in 1992 from the National Hispanic Bar Association. The Camden County Bar Association has previously bestowed another award upon him, the ``Peter J. Devine Award'' in 1992. Judge Rodriguez was also the recipient of the ``Spirit of Edison'' Award in 1997 from Thomas Edison State College. The ``Medal of Honor Award'' was awarded to him in 1999 from the New Jersey State Bar Foundation. That same year, the Association of Federal Bar of State of New Jersey awarded this astounding individual the ``William J. Brennan Jr. Award.'' Recently, in 2001, Judge Rodriguez was named Knight by Order of St. Gregory the Great in receiving the ``St. Thomas More Society Award.'' Madam Speaker, I commend the Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez. His dedication and selfless public service to the first district of New Jersey is greatly treasured and respected. I want to sincerely thank Mr. Rodriguez and wish Judge Rodriguez the best in all his future endeavors.