Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. With the indulgence of the minority, which we appreciate, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee whose expertise is matched only by her passion in this area, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) 1 minute.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield at this time to the new Member from Ohio who knows these issues very well, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Wilson) 1 minute.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very proactive Member from Texas, my friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 1 hour of our time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control this hour of time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 11\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because it provides the affirmation and the change that I believe we need in Iraq. The affirmation is essentially universal in this House. It is an affirmation that we are irrevocably committed to arm, support, equip, and protect the troops that we have sent to Iraq. We are committed to stand by the young men and women who have made the choice to make a sacrifice for this country. That issue is not an issue. What is an issue is whether American policy is working in Iraq or failing in Iraq. I believe it is failing, and I believe that a vote for this resolution is a vote for change. We have frequently heard, Mr. Speaker, from the minority side that they would like to hear a plan. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they start listening to this debate and to the American people. Here is how you build a plan: First, you acknowledge reality by properly defining the problem. The administration persists in rhetoric that defines the conflict in Iraq as a struggle between forces of civilization on one hand and the forces which wrought September 11 on the other. To some extent this characterization is accurate, but to a great extent this characterization is inaccurate. A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is not the result of Islamic violence against American troops, although it exists. A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian violence, Shiia against Sunni, Sunni against Shiia, and occasionally others against the Kurds. This is not the position of the Democratic Party. This is the observation of the military and intelligence leadership in public documents of this country. Sectarian violence is the principal problem in Iraq. If the problem in Iraq were that a fragile but legitimate young government was struggling to hang on but could not overcome the resistance, then this idea of a troop surge would make sense. The idea of sending more fighters to defeat the resistance would make sense. This is not the proper definition of the problem. The troop surge does not send more fighters to defeat the resistance. It sends more referees to inject themselves into the violence between Shiia and Sunni militia and warfighters. The problem in Iraq is largely, not exclusively but largely, how to stop the sectarian violence. The second change that we must have is a change that vests the Iraqis themselves with the primary responsibility and eventually the exclusive responsibility to defeat that sectarian violence. Sending more American troops to do the job of the Iraqis is not the answer. Insisting that the Iraqis do their own job, defend their own country, fight their own fight is the answer. Now, the United States should not divorce itself from that effort. The United States, in my view, should not immediately vest the Iraqis with all that authority. But sending more young Americans to fight the fight for legitimacy of the Iraqi Government will not further the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government. It will defer it. It will weaken it. It will undermine it. There is one way, and one way only, to determine whether Iraqis themselves are willing to fight for this government, whether Shiia are willing to fight Shiia militia, whether Sunni are willing to fight Sunni militia. And that is to let them do it, not to give the job to more and more Americans. This is the change that we need. And, finally, we need a change which recognizes that the principal problem in reaching a unity government in Iraq is political negotiation. Now, this is not to say that diplomats alone can solve this problem, but it is most certainly to say that if those who are vested in the outcome of this civil war are not brought to a conference table, brought to a negotiation, and compelled or encouraged to reach a solution, I doubt very much that it will come. The United States has become the guarantor of the status quo in Iraq, and the status quo is failing. The best way to serve the interests of the American troops is to engage in the democratic debate for which they are fighting. Young Americans are fighting and dying so that Iraqis will have the right to debate their country's future. It would be sadly and bitterly ironic if we abrogated our responsibility to debate our country's future over what they should be doing in that country and how long they should be there. If you want to serve the troops, have the debate. And if you want to promote the idea of avoiding failure in Iraq, then change the policy in Iraq. Do not sustain the status quo. I believe that if you want to change the policy in Iraq, voting ``yes'' on resolution 63 is the right first step. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with words of appreciation for Mr. Robert Knotts, who served with distinction as my legislative director and who will be leaving our office next week to further advance his career. I want to express my appreciation to Robert, Madam Speaker, for the service he has given to our constituents and the fine work he has done as a member of this institution. He has helped me prepare these remarks tonight, and I mean them in a heartfelt way to say thank you. For the last 25 years, the regime in Iran has secretly and unlawfully commenced the process of acquiring a nuclear weapon. This is a grave threat to peaceful and freedom-loving people around the world. This is a regime headed by a president who just recently has said that one Holocaust was not enough, that we need another one; a regime headed by a president who said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth; a regime that has flagrantly and blatantly disregarded international law in pursuing this weapon of mass death. I believe that it should be a policy not only of our country but of freedom-loving nations around the world that this regime in Iran must never have a nuclear weapon that it could use against its neighbors or other peace-loving people around the world. It is truly a grave threat. In my view, Madam Speaker, it is a grave threat that calls for diplomacy, strategy, and cooperation, and not for a reckless rush into armed conflict. That is the purpose, Madam Speaker, of my remarks here this evening. I am troubled by recent signs that I have seen from our administration with respect to the issue of Iran. Placement of naval assets in that area of the world is justified as a defensive measure, but I worry that it may be a provocative measure. The words of our President are words which can be taken, and I hope they are meant in the spirit of warning and cooperation, but they could also be taken in the spirit of provocation, and I hope and pray that they are not meant in that regard. My principal message though this evening is not one about answering the question as to what we should do about the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. My principal message is to find who the ``we'' in that sentence is, what ``we'' should do about the question of nuclear proliferation in Iran. The Constitution of this country vests the sole authority to declare war in the Congress of the United States of America. Our Presidents as commanders in chief have inherent authority to protect our country in time of emergency and to act in self-defense, but it is a clear principle of this Constitution that the power to initiate hostilities, the power to declare war, rests in this body and the other body. I think it is imperative in the days and weeks ahead that in whatever forum, in whatever way, this House go on record as reaffirming that constitutional prerogative with specific reference to the issue of what we should do about Iran. If there is to be consideration of military action involving Iran, in my judgment, such consideration would be reckless and premature at this time and under these facts. But if there is to be consideration of military action, it should be careful, deliberate, thoughtful consideration done under the auspices of this Constitution. America's greatest resource in the area of national defense is the men and women who step forward voluntarily to serve this country and wear the uniform of this country. They step forward because of their faith that we are a country that follows the rule of law, and not the edict or desire of any one man or woman irrespective of what office he or she is elected to. It is my concern that that faith would be eroded and indeed misplaced if we do not follow the rule of law in this crucial instance. This House needs to affirm our constitutional prerogative in this matter. There should be no consideration of the initiation of any preemptive hostilities against Iran or anyone else without the careful, thorough, constitutional consideration that such a question mandates and demands.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, it is my honor today to announce that Brett D. Myles has been promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Family and friends of CPO Myles will gather on the battleship New Jersey on Saturday, January 21, to honor this outstanding young man. In order to achieve this high rank, CPO Myles had to complete many months of intensive training as well as a broad range of U.S. Navy courses. Throughout his service, Chief Petty Officer Myles displayed superior qualities of patriotism, leadership, and expertise. He should be very proud of his achievement: Less than \1/2\ of 1% of the almost 10,000 Naval Sea Cadets in the program succeed in attaining this rank. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor CPO Myles for his outstanding achievement. He is truly an inspiration to all U.S. Naval Sea Cadets and to all citizens of this great Nation. I want to again congratulate CPO Myles for this achievement and I wish him the best of luck in the future.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, this debate is about a promise broken and a promise kept. When President Bush ran for President the first time in 2000, he promised to make the maximum Pell Grant $5,100 per year. Today, the maximum Pell Grant is $4,050 per year. It is true that the erstwhile majority spent more money on Pell Grants, but it is also true that many, many more people were eligible for Pell Grants and the value of the Pell Grant shrunk during the tenure of the erstwhile majority. The new majority is keeping a promise to significantly reduce student loan rates for students across this country. And we are keeping, in my view, a more important promise, to pay for keeping that promise by not adding to the deficit. Unlike the tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. Unlike the seemingly endless misadventure in Iraq, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. Unlike the huge tax breaks for the energy industry at a time when they receive the most profit in their history, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. The ways that this bill is paid for invite careful review of how we balance the direct and private loan programs and they invite careful review of how we adjust the present programs. But this bill is paid for. This is the change that the American people voted for, help for the middle class, not increasing the deficit, and pay-as-you-go. I am delighted to hear that at least two of our colleagues on the other side will vote ``yes'' on this bill. I hope, Madam Speaker, that dozens or even hundreds of our colleagues on the other side will join us in voting ``yes'' in favor of middle-class students and deficit reduction.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of the First Congressional District of New Jersey, I take this opportunity to enter into the Record my position on the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, H.R. 4. First, I would like to congratulate Speaker Pelosi on her outstanding performance over these last few weeks in bringing the real priorities of the American people to the forefront of the 110th Congress's agenda. Reforming the House of Representatives ethics standards, increasing the minimum wage, authorizing Federal research of embryonic stem cells and providing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the authority to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry are all essential measures for the American people. On January 12, 2007, I voted in favor of H.R. 4; however, I have some concerns for seniors in my home State of New Jersey. Although I believe Congress should authorize the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices, I believe his authority should be limited so to not disrupt areas in which the Pharmacy Benefit Managers, PBM, are obtaining the best deal for seniors. If our goal is to ensure that all avenues of achieving price discounts are being used to benefit the seniors and individuals with disabilities in the Medicare program, then Congress should allow drug companies and PBMs, who are successfully negotiating affordable drug prices for seniors, to continue to do so without interference from HHS and focus the Secretary's attention on those areas where competition is stymied and prices are artificially inflated by drug companies. Furthermore, I am concerned about how H.R. 4 will affect various States' prescription drug assistance programs. For example, New Jersey provides drug coverage to over 200,000 low-income seniors through two programs known as the Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled program or PAAD and Senior Gold. After passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, the State of New Jersey made a decision to make beneficiaries whole by providing a ``wrap around'' benefit to Medicare Part D. Therefore, PAAD beneficiaries continue to pay only a $5 co-pay per prescription with no deductible, regardless of the terms of their particular Part D plan. Secondly, because PAAD maintains an open formulary for its beneficiaries, medications not covered under Part D, are covered by PAAD. It has been argued that if the language of H.R. 4 places a restriction on medications Part D will cover, the cost of the PAAD and the Senior Gold program will increase as the burden to provide even more medications not covered by Medicare falls onto the State. As we move toward conference of the two Chambers, I want to make sure H.R. 4 does not lead to restrictions on access to new medications and gives seniors the best possible price for their medications. Again, I commend Speaker Pelosi for a job well done and for making affordable prescription drugs for seniors a top priority in the 110th Congress.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, nearly 10 years ago, I sat on this floor and listened to speeches like the one my friend from Texas just gave, and we voted to raise the minimum wage. And what happened? Unemployment went down. The economy grew. And America prospered. It will happen again if we pass this increase in the minimum wage. There have been many days since that day nearly 10 years ago. One of those days when the prescription drug bill was on the floor, the industry came, and it wanted special protection from lawsuits and special pricing. It was their day, and they got it. When the energy bill was on the floor, the energy companies came in and wanted massive subsidies, and no crackdown on pricing. It was their day, and they got it. When the tax bill was on the floor, the wealthiest people in the country, people making more than $300,000 a year wanted massive tax breaks. It was their day, and they got it. I am sorry to disappoint the opponents of the minimum wage, but this is not your day. This is the day for the people who empty the bed pans, change the bed linens, sweep the floors, and do the hardest work of America. After a 10-year wait, even though they don't have the lobbyists here, even though they don't have the political action committees here, this is their day. This is the day we are going to raise the minimum wage, change the direction of the country, and restore economic fairness for the American economy. Join with Republicans and Democrats and independents across this country. Vote ``yes'' on the increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to honor Amy Edinger, the recipient of the great state of New Jersey's No Child Left Behind 2006 American Star of Teaching award. Throughout her distinguished career, Amy has worked with special education students at the James Fenimore Cooper Elementary School in Cherry Hill. Her efforts to improve the educational atmosphere of her students have earned her both admiration and praise from her colleagues, students, and parents. Her extraordinary innovation and commitment has enabled her to assist her students in moving forward both academically and through improvements in their social skills. Amy's expertise can be measured through the many achievements by the children in her classroom. I would like to commend and congratulate Amy Edinger on this impressive honor. She is an example of excellence in the classroom, and she serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Patrick J. Brennan, Mayor of Merchantville, New Jersey and lifetime resident of New Jersey. Mayor Brennan served on the borough council for four years before becoming mayor. Mayor Brennan is married to Joan Foley and they have seven children. He was born in Camden, New Jersey, raised in Collingswood and attended Camden Catholic High School, Georgetown University and Rutgers University. After an unsuccessful run for state Assembly, Mayor Brennan was elected mayor, a job he has held for 12 years. Mayor Brennan is also the owner of three companies in Turnersville, NJ. Mayor Brennan has successfully maintained Merchantville's hometown, laid-back atmosphere while improving, revitalizing, and redeveloping the borough. He has overseen the development of a new senior housing complex, which will make it easier for the elderly to stay in the town while providing housing opportunities for new seniors. He has also overseen the opening of Chestnut Station in 2003. Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to Mayor Brennan for his years of outstanding service to the borough of Merchantville. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two courageous New Jersey residents and cancer survivors, who have transformed their personal pain into an opportunity to bring hope to others. Dara Marcozzi and Maryellen Yurkow are inspirations to their communities, and it is my privilege to honor them today. Dara Marcozzi and Maryellen ``Mimi'' Yurkow, both ovarian cancer survivors, have worked tirelessly to promote ovarian cancer awareness. They co-founded Teal Magnolias, the south Jersey chapter of the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, to raise funds for ovarian cancer research and to bring together others suffering from the terrible disease--the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. Dara and Mimi are inspirations to us all, and their stories remind us that while we might face difficulties in our own lives, we have the power to overcome. These two remarkable survivors not only overcame their own challenges but now support others in their times of need. Their tireless efforts make our community, and our Nation, a better place.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the LEAP Academy Lancer Basketball Team on their first South Jersey Group I championship. The Lancer Basketball team completed their season 18-7-0. The LEAP Academy basketball program, in its second year, is affiliated with Rutgers-Camden University. Much of their schedule consists of playing teams from the Philadelphia area and Central and North Jersey. Coach Marco Morcos led his team to a phenomenal season that included a seven game winning streak and defeating teams like Bishop Eustace from the South Jersey region. The team included four seniors, Earl Knight, Nathaniel Cooper, William Mace, and Lance James; four juniors, Crawford John, Michael Craig, Chauncey Gillian, and Jamal Baylor-ali; two sophomores, Gary Lyons and Dylan Talley; and four freshmen, Jeremy Delgado, Orlando Hidalgo, Tyrone Parker, and Eric Johnson. Scoring leaders of the team include William Mace (196), Lance James (191), and Dylan Talley (190). Assists leaders include Lance James (103), Crawford John (42), and Dylan Talley (34). Blocks leaders include William Mace (40), Crawford John (19), and Earl Knight (10). Rebound leaders include William Mace (161), Crawford John (121) and Dylan Talley (89). Steals leaders include Crawford John (54), Lance James (40), and William Mace (26). Three point field goal leaders include Lance James (17), Dylan Talley (17), and Crawford John (12). Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the LEAP Academy Basketball Team for an exceptional 2005-2006 season and on their championship. I wish the entire team and school the best of luck in their future athletic, personal, and professional lives.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rutgers-Camden University Women's Softball Team for winning the NCAA Division III Women's Softball Championship in 2006. The Scarlet Raptors defeated the defending champion, the University of St. Thomas, in a thrilling 3-2 decision during play at Peace College in North Carolina last spring in May 2006. This is the first national sports title in Rutgers-Camden history, and also the first NCAA title for a team sport earned on any Rutgers campus. Mr. Speaker, I celebrate the outstanding season of the Rutgers-Camden Women's Softball Team. I applaud every member of the Scarlet Raptors softball team, as well as Coach Carl Taylor and his staff, for this outstanding accomplishment. I am proud of their skill, determination, and fierce competitiveness, and thank them for the excitement they created for all Rutgers-Camden supporters throughout the season.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ed Bonnette, a man who was ``instrumental in lowering the national voting age to 18. Ed served as the New Jersey Chair for the Let US Vote 18 (LUV 18) Committee at the age of 20. His efforts, combined with the efforts of LUV 18 members in 10 other states, made it possible for the 26th Amendment to the Constitution to be ratified in 1971. The Let US Vote 18 Committee had placed referendums on New Jersey ballots throughout the 1960s, without success. In 1970, members of this group took their case before the Supreme Court. The Court agreed that the voting age must be lowered for Federal elections to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States soon realized it would be impractical to have separate voting systems for Federal and State elections, and subsequently moved to change the law. The 26th Amendment was the fastest yet to be certified, with Ohio's ratification making it official. In July of 1971, less than 100 days after the process began, President Richard M. Nixon officially signed the 26th Amendment into law, officially lowering the voting age to 18. Mr. Speaker, I commend Ed Bonnette today for all that he has done for the First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country. Ed's service is worthy of admiration, and I applaud him for his efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to honor John Browne, a courageous cancer survivor and citizen from the great state of New Jersey. After winning his battle with cancer, Mr. Browne tirelessly worked to bring hope to others afflicted with this terrible disease. He is truly an inspiration to others and it is my privilege to honor him today. Diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, John Browne needed a liver transplant to save his life. Now healthy, John is working to make others aware of the importance of organ donation. He works as a volunteer for the Gift of Life Donor Program, an organization that matches donors with patients, Today about 90,000 people in the United States are awaiting an organ transplant. Making the decision to be an organ donor can save lives. I want to thank John for all that he has done. He was given a second chance at life and selflessly used it to help others in need. John's story proves that one person can make a difference in the world. His volunteer efforts have given hope to cancer patients, and he has made our community, and our Nation, a better place.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if tonight the National Security Adviser walked in the Oval Office and said, ``Mr. President, we believe there is an imminent attack about to occur in the United States, and we want to listen in on a phone call,'' we think there should be no doubt that the President has the authority to say, ``Yes, listen in on that phone call,'' to protect the United States. But at some point the emergency power ends, and the normal rules of law must obtain. Certainly that point comes sooner than 90 days after the request is made, which can be renewed and renewed and renewed without a decision of an independent Federal judge. We have a law in place that says that within 72 hours of that emergency our President must go before independent Federal judges in a private, secret proceeding and justify the decision to listen to the calls of Americans or read their e-mails. 99.9 percent of the time since 1978 that has worked. There is simply no record, there is simply no justification to overturn that decision. This is the most expansive, frightening, and unreasonable expansion of government power since Japanese Americans were unlawfully interred during the Second World War. One of our friends from the other side of the aisle said that he was offended that liberals had somehow subjected the country to danger. Well, America's first liberal, Thomas Jefferson, would be offended by this piece of legislation, because it sets the outer balance of Presidential power wherever the President chooses to set those outer bounds. This violates Marbury v. Madison, it violates a fundamental tenant of American law, and, for these reasons, this bill should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), my very thoughtful friend.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken in this debate on both sides I think shares a deeply held conviction that they want terrorists who would threaten this country prosecuted, convicted and punished. Because I believe the commencement of those prosecutions is imperative for the future of the country, I will support this bill. I will do so, however, with two severe reservations which I would hope would be dealt with by the other body and in conference. The first has to do with the issue of habeas corpus, which is a complicated word, but in this context, here is what it means: As I read this bill there is a risk that a suspected terrorist could be held for an indefinite period of time without recourse to any decisionmaker outside of the executive branch. The constitutionally of this is ambiguous. But the wisdom of it I think is clear. It is not very wise. I think revisiting this provision as the bill goes forward would assure the constitutionality of the bill and its compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that there has been an insufficient procedure for us to consider this bill. There have been many good ideas dealing with habeas corpus, dealing with issues of retroactive immunity that I think deserve a full and fair airing and hearing on this floor. This is an unfortunate procedure in which we find ourselves. My concern is it will be our sole opportunity, given the way things go around here, to voice our opinions on this. I do think that the underlying provisions of this bill are consistent with the spirit and letter of our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. I have concluded that compliance with these conventions is essential so we can go forward in prosecuting and trying those who threaten our country. I believe this process needs great improvement. I think this bill needs one very specific improvement. But to move it forward, I will vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on September 25, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 5059--to designate the Wild River Wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, ``no'' on H.R. 5062--to designate as wilderness certain National Forest System land in the State of New Hampshire, and ``yes'' on H.R. 6102--to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, VA, as the ``Captain Christopher Petty Post Office Building.''