Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan and my friend from California for their cooperation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are many different views in the House as to how we should prosecute the war effort in Iraq. There are many different views as to what we should do next. But I believe there is only one view about the constitutional responsibility of this branch of government, and that is that we have the solemn and grave responsibility of oversight. It is our job on behalf of our constituents to ask questions about the direction, the efficacy, and the future of American policy in Iraq. In order to appropriately answer those questions, it is important that certain facts be adduced and be available to the Members on a regular basis. Because of the sensitive nature of those facts, it is important that the facts be available on a classified basis so that those who are prosecuting the war and the related intelligence activities are not compromised in any way. The purpose of my amendment is to serve the twin goals of promoting fact-based oversight while maintaining the confidentiality and security of sources and methods of intelligence gathering. My amendment says this: on a quarterly basis, the relevant intelligence authorities would be responsible for producing for the House a classified report that would set forth the best intelligence estimates as to the number of resistance fighters in Iraq. These categories would be broken down according to the various sources of the disruption and violence that we are seeing: former regime elements, insurgents from outside of the country, groups associated with terrorist organizations around the world, and so forth. I am not suggesting that the only metric of the success of our policy would be the diminution of such forces, but I am suggesting that a critical metric of the success or failure would be the metric of that reduction. Similarly, if we are having trouble pinpointing the number in each category, that alone is a relevant fact that would help us understand the nature of the problem that we face and the nature of remedies to those problems. So this report would produce an important metric for review by the Members as to the progress or lack thereof with respect to defeating the resistance in Iraq. I want to reemphasize that this report is quarterly and it is classified. This would be handled much in the same way that the intelligence budget is handled, where Members who have properly executed the proper oath would have access to the information on a quarterly basis, would have the opportunity to review it, would be bound by the appropriate rules of confidentiality in discussing what they have seen, but would be able to form a more factual basis for an evaluation of the success or lack thereof of our policies in Iraq. Again, I believe that this amendment serves the many different views we have with the prosecution of this policy in Iraq. For those who would call for an expeditious withdrawal, for those who would call for staying the course, for all those in between, this would be fact-based information that I think would enrich our debate and further advance our constitutional responsibility of oversight. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge adoption of the amendment, and I thank you for this opportunity to explain it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also know that the Spratt alternative, by forgoing the reckless tax cuts of the majority's version, gives us the flexibility and resources to meet our true obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the Spratt alternative, frankly, leaves room for the supplementals that would be necessary, because it does not opt for fiscally reckless tax cuts that have put the country in a position where it is borrowing $25 for every $100 that it spends. It is true, as the chairman points out, that the Spratt alternative doesn't lay out the true costs of this adventure in Iraq. But it is also true that the supplementals that are inevitably coming, inevitably, that there are resources for those supplementals because of what Mr. Spratt has done, and there are not resources beyond simply expanding the deficit because of what the majority has done. Whether one agrees with the policy in Iraq or disagrees with the policy in Iraq, the reality is we have to pay for it. To put on the floor a budget that doesn't pay for it and then takes up resources that could be used in a supplemental and soaks them up for the majority's worship at the altar of tax cuts for the wealthy, I think is irresponsibility beyond compare. There are a lot of debates one can have about the question of Iraq, but the debate we cannot have is whether we have to pay for what we are doing. The majority has put us in a position where we will only pay for it by borrowing money. Mr. Spratt has put us in a position where we can follow a more rational path. I urge adoption of the Spratt alternative.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, perhaps instead of the rhetoric that the gentleman from Iowa ought to check is the rhetoric that refuses to ever consider scaling back the size of the sacred cow tax cut to meet the honest obligations that this government has to those men and women that he invoked just a minute ago. The reality is there will be at least one supplemental on this floor; the reality is it is not accounted for in the underlying resolution; and the reality is that, as far as I can see from their past behavior, the majority would not even consider scaling back the size or scope of the tax cut in order to finance that supplemental. Now, I would be thrilled to hear the chairman correct any of those three assumptions, but I assume that they are accurate. Or, Mr. Chairman, I would yield to you. Are any of my three assumptions inaccurate?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons that the Spratt substitute is a superior alternative to the base bill, but I think among the most important reasons is the basic credibility and honesty of the Spratt alternative when it comes to the foreign entanglement issues our country finds itself faced with today. The base bill essentially assumes that the conflict in Iraq will wind down very precipitously and require almost no resources in the coming fiscal years. I hope that is true, but I think it is wildly imprudent and recklessly irresponsible to build a budget on that assumption.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, is that amount sufficient to meet the supplemental need, do you think? Apparently not.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and ranking member for yielding. I appreciate the comment he just made, but the debate here really is not about whether the law should authorize hybrid plans or cash balance plans. The issue is how should the law authorize those plans and what kinds of protections should be included for pensioners and workers. I think Mr. Miller's approach in this motion to instruct takes us down the right road, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support it. There are three issues that we have to resolve here. The first is what steps should be taken to prevent the wearing away of benefits for workers that have started in a pension plan and then find themselves in a different position because of a hybrid plan being adopted. Mr. Miller's approach I think uses the most conservative assumptions and therefore the fairest assumptions for those workers to make sure that they will not lose benefits. The second question that has to be addressed is what are the conditions under which a conversion will be treated as legal. In other words, if an employer has a traditional pension plan today and he or she wants to switch that plan to a hybrid plan, what are the ground rules for a fair conversion. I think Mr. Miller's approach is the fair and just one in that regard as well. The third question which is raised in neither bill, but which I hope the conference could at least touch on, is what about conversions that have already taken place, and what should the ground rules be for those with respect to any lingering issues that may have happened with respect to them. Chairman McKeon I think is right, there does need to be a recognition of the proper place of hybrid plans in the defined benefit world. I think the House and Senate agree that is the case. The issue, though, as Mr. Miller raises, is what are the proper rules to ensure fairness in those hybrid plans. I think Mr. Miller takes the proper approach, and so I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to instruct.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this important piece of legislation. I commend Chairman Hyde and my fellow New Jerseyans, African Subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Donald Payne for bringing this bill to the floor and helping keep our focus on the terrible crisis in Darfur and humanitarian needs in Sudan. Three years ago, the people of Sudan began a bloody civil war, with two rebel groups in the South rising up against the government in Khartoum. The response from the Sudanese government was swift and brutal, and its aerial bombardment and support of the criminal militia known as the Janjaweed continues today throughout the country. But what has been done in the Southern region of Darfur is beyond anything we have seen in many years. Mr. Speaker, it was not lightly that Congress declared the situation in Darfur a genocide on July 22, 2004. The government and its Janjaweed allies have killed hundreds of thousands of its non-Arab citizens in the region, and this genocide continues unabated today. More than two million civilians have been displaced from their homes, over 100,000 fleeing to neighboring Chad, and these refugees live in the most difficult situations, still surrounded by Janjaweed abusers and fearful for their safety. Rape has been widespread, and as the Janjaweed move across the region they leave a path of destruction that makes living nearly impossible for the few survivors left behind. The military of the African Union, now 7,000 strong in Sudan, is doing valiant work but has never received adequate support. The recent discussions with NATO and the United Nations to bring additional forces and military material to the peacekeeping and stabilization mission are promising, but are not enough. The bill under consideration today would authorize much needed assistance to the African Union Mission in Sudan, and direct the President to support the expansion of this force to strengthen their work to bring peace to the region. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, which lends significant support to ongoing efforts to end the crisis in Darfur. The bill supports the use of sanctions on the government of Sudan to pressure it to end its support for the Janjaweed and return to the negotiating table. Only through strong U.S. involvement will there be an end to the violence in Darfur, and this bill provides the backing the administration needs to take further action. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the American people are in firm support of the U.S. taking action on Darfur, and are strongly moved by this tragedy, which some have likened to the Holocaust. In my own district, a wide range of faith communities have joined together in the South Jersey Interfaith Coalition to Save Darfur. I am proud to be an honorary co-chair of this group which brings together people from southern New Jersey to take action on this issue. I am also proud of the students of Voorhees Middle School, who, with the help of their teacher Joyce Laurella, organized ``Project: Save Darfur,'' which has raised awareness of the crisis as well as money for UNICEF activities in Sudan. Individual action can make a difference, and the U.S. government should join its citizens in mobilizing on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence in this matter, which grows more dire every day. We cannot stand idly by, as we did in the face of the genocide in Rwanda and in the early stages of the Nazi holocaust, and then report sadly from the gravesites of those who died. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and support these steps to end the genocide.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of difficult negotiation, Saudi Arabia joined the World Trade Organization last November. This was good news--the Saudi government has the potential to further join the world community as a responsible actor on the world stage, and the Saudi economy is a large one that will benefit from international trade, as will the U.S. in turn from increased commerce with the Arab nation. However, the Saudis are yet again missing a unique opportunity to reform, blinded by an irrational hatred of their neighbor, Israel. This is part of a larger fabric of unacceptable behavior on the part of Saudi Arabia, which seeks greater ties with the West while maintaining its autocratic and anti-democratic policies. State- sponsored Saudi TV regularly broadcasts not just anti-Israeli diatribes, but anti-American propaganda as well, further encouraging the attitudes that lead to terrorism. The fact that Saudi nationals continue to significantly fund international terrorism, as reported this week by the U.S. Treasury Department, means that Saudis have a long way to go to match their anti-terror rhetoric with their actions. As I have in the past, I once again call on Saudi leader Prince Faisal to take responsibility for his government's actions which promote hatred and the repercussions it has on Saudi Arabia's relations with other countries. As President Carter said in 1977, the Israeli boycott ``goes to the heart of free trade among nations,'' and is clearly unacceptable from a member of the World Trade Organization. This boycott, in place since the founding of Israel in 1945, has no place in the modern, globalized world. Recognizing this, several Gulf States are withdrawing from the boycott, and gaining both political and economic benefits. In the face of these events, Saudi Arabia's recalcitrance is all the more puzzling. Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia has reportedly agreed to end the secondary and tertiary aspects of the anti-Israeli boycott, but is stopping short of allowing direct trade with its neighbor. Such half-measures are clearly not acceptable. All World Trade Organization members must treat all other members equally. According to diplomats, Saudi Arabia affirmed this principle with respect to Israel before being admitted to the WTO. Today's resolution expresses the sense of Congress that Saudi Arabia must live up to its commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization and end its boycott against Israel. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I appreciate your help, I appreciate your yielding the time, and I thank Mr. Kildee, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Boehner before him, and I thank my friend from Louisiana for offering this amendment. This amendment recognizes that there is a public service value to the work of residents who go into a complex and long-term residency in the health care field. There is a recognition that these are individuals who are contributing to the public good in two very important ways: the first is the specialization with which they come out of school, which is incredibly important for the health of our population. The second is that in order to achieve those skills they are deferring their higher earning years for a very, very considerable period of time, in excess of 5 years. These are people with families and household obligations who are working very long hours, working at a very intense occupation and specialization, and giving up a significant amount of wealth and economic opportunity to do so. This is a public service, and it is important to recognize the public benefit that comes from this. So I think that Mr. Boustany's idea, in which I heartily join, of requiring more than 5 years in the residency program in medical specialties that have shortages recognizes the public service that these men and women are providing and falls into the other categories of occupations that are already recognized in the existing section 421 of the law. I believe that this amendment will result in more talented young men and women stepping forward and serving in critical and underserved areas of health care in the country. This will result in an increase in the quality of our health care in our system and a more moderate degree of fairness in terms of loan forgiveness for the young men and women who do so. These are folks who work very, very long hours and incur a huge amount of debt and are foregoing and giving up benefits that other families are receiving, and I think it is a worthy consideration for us to extend this modest loan forgiveness under the right circumstances to these men and women. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am obviously in favor of the amendment. I want to thank the chairman from California; my colleagues from Nevada and Arizona; our ranking member, Mr. George Miller; and our subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Kildee, for their cooperation. This is really an unsung heroes amendment. It is for people who administer inoculation shots to children in health clinics. It is for people that work in senior centers serving meals to senior citizens. It is for lawyers who go to court and represent people who are too poor to otherwise afford a lawyer on their own when they are facing an eviction or a bankruptcy or domestic violence crisis. It is a modest way to encourage people to enter and stay in those fields. If a person makes a long-term commitment, a minimum of 5 years, for public service fields, this amendment makes it possible that there will be a $5,000 amount of forgiveness on the student loans that they owe. Now, I wish, frankly, we could include more people. I wish that we could have a greater level of forgiveness. Some of the issues that Mr. Miller was talking about earlier today really go to that point as to why there are not more resources available in this bill. Having said that, this is a modest improvement. The average debt for a person graduating from a 4-year program is about $18,000 a year now. So a $5,000 loan forgiveness is quite relevant to a person in one of those fields and could be quite helpful. Frankly, although the help is welcome, it falls short for those who have gone beyond the baccalaureate degree to a graduate or professional school because their debt usually tends towards six figures, and although any little bit helps, this is most decidedly only a very little bit. Nevertheless, it is an improvement over the existing situation. It does help those unsung heroes. I again thank the leadership of the committee on both sides for making this a possibility. And I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. I thank him, Mr. Kildee, Chairman McKeon, and Chairman Boehner before him, for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is a pleasure to work with my friend from Louisiana on this issue. I think this issue addresses a poorly thought-up health care policy we have in this country, which is to say that we want to discourage people from going into certain aspects of health care professions because we have a mismatch between the amount of debt they need to earn their education in that area and the amount of money they are going to make to pursue that area. A lot of critical specialties in the health care field, in the physician field especially, are underserved because the students cannot make that mismatch work in their lives. The choice between incurring six-figure debt, which is typical of medical students, and then spending 5 years or more in a residency program that thoroughly underpays you and thoroughly overworks you is a policy which is driving people out of some very important, needed specializations. My friend and I bring this to the floor as a hypothesis. What we want the GAO to do is to test that hypothesis and to look at the reasons why people are underenrolling in long-term residency programs. Mr. Chairman, I would be very surprised if the finding was anything other than the fact that the amount of debt that students are incurring is a major factor in their decision to avoid these longer-term residencies. This is particularly important at a time when pediatric health and geriatric health are such huge issues in this country. Many of these specialties overlap with the care of our very young, prenatal and pediatric patients, and our elderly who are dealing with increasing issues of Alzheimer's, dementia and other problems. So at a time when we most need people in these areas of specialization and when their residency, by definition, must be extended so we can truly learn the field, we are driving young physicians out of these fields because of this mismatch between student debt and the relatively meager income. I thank my friend from Louisiana for working with us on this measure. I look forward to the GAO finishing its work; and hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we can have a bipartisan effort down the road to make loan programs more robust and more reasonable from the point of view of students, so that we can proceed with that. I thank my friend from California for the time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of Greek Independence Day, which was celebrated this past Saturday. In doing so, I reaffirm the historic and strategic ties between the United States of America and Greece, and acknowledge the heritage that all of Western civilization draws from both ancient and modern sources in Greece. On March 25, 1821, the people of Greece declared independence from their Ottoman occupiers and reclaimed the mantle of democracy that they originated in ancient Athens. Since then, they have been a true and steady friend of the United States, working together to promote our common ideals, common goals, and in recognition of our mutual admiration. We are partners in seeking peace and prosperity in the Balkans and southeastern Mediterranean, as well as throughout the world. In celebrating Greek Independence Day this year, we recognize the contributions of ancient Greece to the establishment of democracy and culture, and the continuing importance of modern Greece in national affairs. Additionally, we affirm the innumerable contributions that Greek Americans have made to the United States. Their independence and creativity have been an essential component of the American success story, adding immeasurably to our economic strength. Greek American cultural values have enriched our communities and added to the diversity we cherish as Americans. I hope that you will join me in saluting Greece and Greek Americans in this 185th anniversary of Greek Independence Day.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed five votes on March 15, 2006. I stayed in New Jersey to be with a family member who was undergoing surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted no on Ordering the Previous Question (with regard to H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes); no on H. Res. 725 (the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4939); yes on H. Con. Res. 190 (Expressing the sense of Congress that the Russian Federation should fully protect the freedoms of all religious communities without distinction, whether registered and unregistered, as stipulated by the Russian Constitution and international standards); no on the Gilchrest Amendment (which strikes language in the H.R. 4939 that would block the Dubai Port World deal); and yes on H.R. 4944 (To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Joal Emerson Wolf of the U.S. Army Reserves for his dedicated service to the United States of America. Colonel Wolf's colleagues, family, and friends gathered on January 20, 2006 at Bolling Air Force Base to celebrate his promotion to the rank of Colonel. Colonel Wolf has dutifully served our Nation's military since 1983. Most recently he distinguished himself as the Commander of the 3401st Military Intelligence Detachment, and Chief of Staff of the Iraq Intelligence Task Force and the Iraq Working Group of the Joint Staff at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Colonel Wolf honors his family's military legacy with his selfless commitment to the security of the American people. He comes from a distinguished family of military tradition: both his father, the late Dr. Alan Emerson Wolf, and his mother, Phyllis Marie Clairmont, served in military intelligence. I am honored to be married to Colonel Wolf's sister, Camille Spinello Andrews, and to say that he represents our family--as well as our Nation--with great honor and integrity. Colonel Wolf is an inspiration to service members everywhere, and to all citizens of our great Nation. I commend and congratulate Colonel Wolf for his promotion to such an esteemed rank in the U.S. Army Reserves. We are all safer because of his service.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, in this debate we see the irony of the majority leadership of the House of Representatives in a rather strange way. They are rushing to get to the floor a provision that has barely been debated and discussed, that is highly controversial, highly technical, and not very well understood by a lot of people. An absolute rush to get this to the floor. The number one issue, I trust in most Members' districts, it sure is in mine, is the urgent pendency of a deal that would turn over major port operations throughout this country to a company wholly owned by the United Arab Emirates, an ally of rather questionable and debatable standing with the United States. Now, this is going to happen, this port deal, if Congress does not act. The President has made that very clear. And many of us believe that we need to get to this floor right now, not later, legislation on this issue so that the majority can work its will. Members on both sides of the aisle have said this is what we need to be doing right now. But there is nothing on the agenda to do anything about that. Nothing. We are going to go off for another recess, and who knows what is going to be negotiated on this deal when we are gone? My sense is this is what our constituents want us to debate and legislate on, the wisdom or lack thereof of this port takeover deal. We will have an opportunity by voting ``no'' on moving the previous question to bring to this floor a piece of legislation the American people really do want debated right now; don't want sent back to committee for further hearings or further consideration. This is just bizarre. It is bizarre. A piece of legislation that appears to be a solution in search of a problem is rushed to the floor so it can be considered, and something that is acknowledged from coast to coast by both parties in both Chambers as a huge problem cannot make it to the floor at all. Well, we have a chance to do something about that. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and make the people's House reflect the people's business.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in support of this motion. This motion asks the Members three questions. The first question is whether we should take the position that before airline pension plans of companies that are in real trouble terminate their pension plans, whether those companies should be required to take every reasonable step prior to that termination; whether we should be able to put those companies in a position where they can stretch out their payments to the pension plan, look for other ways they can fund the pension plan, and meet their pension obligations to their retirees. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, we should require that the law do that, which is why this motion takes the right course. The second question that this motion asks is with respect to healthy pension plans. Should it be the principles of the new law that we should operate with care and avoid new funding requirements on these healthy pension plans which are more likely to push them into disrepair and trouble? I would suggest that the answer is yes, we should. The guiding principle, as the conference proceeds in writing this new law, should be to first do no harm to the healthy defined benefit plans that exist. So I think this motion correctly answers that question and follows the right path. Finally, this motion raises the question as to whether we should permanently enshrine in the law the savers credit. The savers credit has been used by more than 5 million Americans in recent years. These are Americans who wait on tables, fix engines, work in child care centers, who have managed to squeeze out just a little bit of what is left out of their paycheck to put it away into a retirement plan. Wisely, Uncle Sam matches a part of that small savings from that worker to try to encourage more people to do that. This is good for those families, it is good for the country's economy, it is good for the Social Security system. That credit is due to expire at the end of 2008. This resolution raises the question as to whether we should let that credit expire. We think the answer is no, we shouldn't let that credit expire, it should be permanently enshrined into law. So I think those are three eminently reasonable propositions. We should encourage airlines not to terminate their plans if there is a reasonable and viable alternative; we should go to well-funded healthy plans and do no harm to them as we write new rules about funding pension plans; and, finally, we should take this very useful provision, supported by both the Republican and Democratic parties, that more than 5 million Americans have used, and keep it in the law. For these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Miller motion.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those students from Deptford Township schools who participated in a contest to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks on January 11, 2006. The way in which these students portrayed their thoughts on Dr. King and Ms. Parks was touching and memorable. During this contest, students were given the opportunity to express their thoughts on these important historical figures by creating a poster or writing an essay highlighting memorable events in the lives of these two heroic Americans. The contest corresponded with the annual celebration of Dr. King. The students whose essays and posters won are: Scott Medes, Andrea Akins, Lauren Perry, Rachel Hajna, Jimmy Kunkle, Sheena Williams, Sara Duffy, Zachary Kummer, Ashley Duffy, Danielle Hogan, Ronald Grace, Danika Atkinson, Jordan Johnson, Michael Baney, Justina Dougherty, Jared Field, Ann Mary Tullio, Nicholas Eisen, Madelyn Elliot and Sean Clason. Their works showed exceptional thought and creativity. We have seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that Dr. King's and Mrs. Parks' message of justice for all people is still as important today as it was in the 1950's and 1960's. Although it disproportionately affected people of color, Hurricane Katrina affected anyone young enough, old enough or poor enough to be left behind. The students that participated in this contest embodied Dr. King's and Mrs. Parks' message and are truly an inspiration to all citizens of the United States of America. The following are five of the winning essays: Making a World of Difference (By Zachary Kummer, Grade 6) As I sit in my classroom and look around, I see students of many different races. We are all here to learn and everyone has the same opportunity to get a good education. The teacher treats us all the same, and we use the same books, desks, fountains, and lavatories. All the students are together in the same classroom without any discrimination by race or religion. If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he would see his dream fulfilled in my classroom. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a minister who believed in equality for all. He thought that the Constitution of the United States was meant for all people. His famous speech of ``I Have a Dream'' said that he dreamed of a time when people of all races and religions would be treated the same. Dr. King was influenced by many people. His grandfather, his father, Abraham Lincoln, and Rosa Parks were some of these people who had an influence on him. Dr. King admired the courage Rosa Parks showed in her refusal to give up her seat on a bus. He respected her non- violent protest. Rosa Parks' action was one of the things that led to the boycott of the buses by people of color. Dr. King became involved in this peaceful action and showed that there is power when people join together in a protest. Not only has the United States changed because of Dr. King, but the rest of the world has been influenced by his peaceful ways to bring about change in laws to give equality to all people. People of color in South Africa were influenced by Dr. King and have changed the apartheid laws. In conclusion, the influence of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks has greatly changed the rights of all people, especially minorities, from separation and discrimination to equality in all parts of our lives.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Tom Page for his many years of service to his community. Starting in 1958, Mr. Page devoted 30 years of his life to the Barrington Police Department, climbing the ranks from patrolman to chief. His service did not end there. He went on to represent Barrington, New Jersey, as a councilman for a total of 7 years, with a term as mayor in between. Mr. Page took time out of his busy schedule to coach in and manage the Barrington Little League and Girl's Softball League. He is a past member of the Barrington Ambulance Corps., the PBA Local 328, and a past associate member of the Barrington Fire Co. Tom is retired from the International Association of Chiefs of Police and NJ State Association of Chiefs of Police, as well as the ex-president of Camden County Police Chiefs Assoc. Currently, Tom Page works for Camden County Department of Corrections as a training officer. Tom Page is a pillar in my community, and he has served us well for 43 years. I express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Page for over four decades of service to his community.