Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would further yield, what the gentlewoman is saying is that if the insurance industry chooses to keep these protections, it may; but if it chooses not to, the person who is covered under the plan does not get any of the coverage the gentlewoman just spoke of; is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, and it is also true, is it not, like I said to my colleague from Minnesota, that in the underlying bill that the majority offered, that each one of those State protections that the gentlewoman just outlined would be invalidated?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Fifteen and 30 percent. That is a new number for us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what premium benefit then would the chairman claim would result from this bill? I yield to the chairman to tell us what premium benefit he predicts would result from the underlying bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the leader of our committee and one of the leading opponents of this plan that would take health care coverage away from 1 million people.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) who, as a former insurance commissioner from North Dakota, has direct experience with AHPs running out of money and not paying their claims.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I understand there are variations in plan costs around the country. I would once again say, however, that the most enthusiastic proponents of the AHP plan do not talk about a reduction of the magnitude that the chairman of the full committee just talked about; they talk, at best case, about a 15 or 16 percent premium reduction. If you live in a market that has a $6,000-per-person premium, which I do, that is nowhere near a $2,700 reduction which the chairman's phone calls have uncovered.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Alan Bray. Alan Bray is well known throughout Maine as a talented artist who is able to capture the beauty of Maine in his paintings. Alan's art has been enjoyed by so many who appreciate his amazing works. He has studied art around the world and earned his degree in Italy. He has had his artwork displayed at museums in New York City and reviewed in some of the finest publications. He has been to the great bay of San Francisco and to the shores of Florida, yet Alan always chooses to return to that place from which he came. Perhaps Alan Bray's greatest works, however, lie not within his art but within his soul. You see, Alan comes from Sangerville, a small town in central Maine where the people do not always enjoy many of the every-day advantages as those of us who have the opportunity to live in more populous and prosperous areas. Closing Mills, unemployment and lower wages place a strain on families and communities, but Alan Bray is a community's strength. Alan has given his time and his talents to the local college, where he passes on his vast knowledge of art and artistic methods to students eager to absorb it, but who would otherwise be without the opportunity to learn from such life experiences. He has lead the effort to revive the local Grange, once a meeting place for farmers in the surrounding communities to discuss means to deliver their crops to the cities and ensure their earning a fair wage for their long, hard hours of work. Today, the Sangerville Grange is a center of culture and draws musical talent, poets, speakers and others with so much to offer and to teach, much as the town of Collingswood in my district has the Scottish Rite. Like the Rite, the Grange has become widely known for drawing some of the finest talent and sharpest minds to deliver music, art and culture to the small community of good, descent people who so deserve the wonderful offerings a civilized society has to give. It is a result of the vision, character and hard work of Alan Bray. Alan is now being recognized as a recipient of the Jefferson Award, a prestigious award that honors community service and cooperative spirit, and he is here in Washington today to humbly accept that award for his good works, his good deeds, but mainly, for the good his good deeds, but mainly for the good content of his character. Alan Bray embodies the spirit of returning to one's community a hundred fold that which you have gained from it, and of unpaid public service that is an essential part of the spirit of America. He is a ray of hope to some who are in need of hope; a beacon of light to others who struggle to find their way, and a modern visionary of what otherwise ordinary people can do to make extraordinary things come to be. Congratulations, Alan. Your community, your state, and indeed your nation, thank you.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Mr. William Still and to celebrate the upcoming National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival. Mr. Still, known as the ``Father of the Underground Railroad,'' was one of the primary architects of the legendary passage that assisted slaves in achieving their long sought freedom in the North. From early childhood, William Still worked on his father's farm in Burlington County, New Jersey. When he was 23, he left the family farm for Philadelphia, arriving poor and friendless. But, as a testament to his determined nature and a foreshadowing of his future success, Mr. Still taught himself to read so by 1847, he was able to hold a secretarial position in the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. While in this position, Mr. Still became directly involved in assisting African-Americans with their escape from the institution of slavery, and was able to provide boarding for many of the fugitives who rested in Philadelphia before continuing their journey to Canada. William Still became well known for his hard work and dedication, and in 1951 when Philadelphia abolitionists organized the Vigilance Committee to assist fugitives traveling through the city, Mr. Still was elected chairman. During this time, Mr. Still used his house as one of the busiest stations on the Underground Railroad, being awoken endlessly and tirelessly throughout the night to provide fugitives with clothing and food. By some estimates, Mr. Still helped a total of 649 slaves obtain freedom. In addition, Mr. Still interviewed the fleeing slaves, including the famous conductor, Harriet Tubman, and kept careful records so that families and friends would be able to locate their relatives in the future. The result was his 1872 publication, The Underground Railroad; a seminal work documenting the perilous journeys slaves took for freedom. In addition to his work on the Underground Railroad, Mr. Still, an active member of the Presbyterian Church, established a Mission School in North Philadelphia and organized one of the early YMCAs for black youth. Through these efforts, Mr. Still helped African-American youth embrace their newfound freedom, and it was with his strong leadership that the African-American community successfully made the difficult transition from the cruelty of slavery to the joys of emancipation. In honor of his esteemed and gracious work, the William Still Underground Railroad Foundation, Inc., as requested by the Harriet Tubman Historical Society, is sponsoring the first annual National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival to take place in Camden, NJ and Philadelphia, PA from June 27-29, 2003. The three-day celebration will reunite descendants of conductors, abolitionists, stationmasters, fugitives, and all those whose ancestors were associated with the Underground Railroad in a public arena. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Mr. William Still, a man who dedicated his life to ensure the freedom and survival of others. In addition, I offer my sincere admiration and appreciation to the William Still Underground Railroad Foundation for planning and sponsoring the first annual National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in strong support of the recent actions taken by the Illinois state legislature regarding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would unequivocally guarantee equal gender rights under the law. As many of my colleagues are certainly aware, the Illinois State Assembly recently voted on and passed the ERA, clearing the way for their counterparts in the Senate to consider this crucial legislation at the conclusion of their current recess. If Illinois' State Senate agrees to ratify the ERA, then only two more state ratifications will be necessary for this long overdue amendment to be added to our Constitution. Some people have argued that the addition of an ERA amendment to the Constitution would simply be a change in semantics and nothing more. I strongly disagree. Presently, on average, women receive only 76 percent of the pay that men receive for comparable full time positions. Inequities such as these are inexcusable; they are disastrously damaging not just to women, but also to their families. Through the ratification of an Equal Rights Amendment, women would have an expanded legal basis to call for equal compensation for equal work. Although the Equal Rights Amendment may have faded from the public spotlight at times, the movement to include women in the Constitution never died, and it is growing vigorously once again. Women had to wait until 1920 to be granted the right to vote under the Constitution. While this was certainly a monumental development, it has not produced full gender equality. The 14th Amendment, granting ``equal protection of the laws,'' did not, and still does not, fully protect women from damaging gender discrimination. Only an Equal Rights Amendment would ensure the Constitutionally guaranteed full equality that women deserve. The ERA was originally passed by Congress in 1972, along with a seven-year time limit for ratification. In 1979, Congress extended the time limit for three more years, leaving the deadline at 1982. Within a decade of the initial 1972 passage, the amendment had been ratified by 35 states, three short of the necessary 38. For many years after that, the ERA was, for technical reasons, generally considered ``dead.'' However, legal analyses indicate that with just three more state ratifications, the ERA may in fact meet the requirements to be added to the Constitution. As has been verified by several legal experts, the fact that the time limit appears in the proposing clause rather than the text of the legislation leaves this deadline open to adjustment. When Congress chose to extend the deadline in 1979, a precedent was set; subsequent sessions of Congress may adjust time limits placed in proposing clauses by their predecessors. These adjustments may include extensions of time, reductions, or elimination of the deadline altogether. It is therefore possible for current or future sessions of Congress to eliminate the deadline originally placed on ratification of the ERA, thus allowing the amendment to be added to the Constitution once it is ratified by three more states. This ``three state strategy'' is a very real possibility, and I have introduced legislation into the House of Representatives, H. Res. 38, to ensure that action will be immediately considered by Congress once three more state legislatures ratify the ERA. Put simply, it is time for the Constitution to be amended to include an amendment which ensures gender equality for all Americans. Today, unlike some times in the past, the American people are decidedly ready for Constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights for men and women. A July 2001 nationwide survey by Opinion Research Corporation showed that 96 percent of American adults believe that male and female citizens of the U.S. should have equal rights, and 88 percent believe that our Constitution should explicitly guarantee those rights. Having the ERA in the Constitution will simply recognize what the American people already want--equal justice under the law. Many leaders both here in Congress and in state legislatures are advocating for the ``three state strategy,'' as well as a renewal of the ERA by Congress through a second passage of the amendment. I feel that anyone who is serious about guaranteeing equal rights to women should be supportive of both of these approaches. It does not matter how the ERA is eventually made part of the Constitution, as long as guaranteed gender equality rights are the end result. As the Equal Rights Amendment reads, ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.'' The ERA is unfinished business for the Constitution. It will be achieved, and present and future generations of women--and men--will thank us for it, and wonder why it took so long. It is simple justice, it is long overdue, and it is time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning 1 million Americans will arise and have no jobs. They will go to the front doorstep and pick up the newspaper and look at the want ads. The want ads will be filled with solicitations for jobs if you are a nuclear engineer or if you are ready to work for minimum wage with no benefits. And then they will go to their mailbox and even though they have no job, they will still have their mortgage bill and their car insurance bill and their utility bill and all the other expenses they need to support their families. And they will go out for their daily trek to try to find work and they will find that for every 3\1/2\ people in America looking for a job, there is one job. It is a measure of decency and equity how we treat these 1 million Americans. Before we adjourn for the recess in the wee small hours of the morning, the majority will no doubt pass significant relief for the owners of the companies that laid off these million people. How tragic it is that we will not even get the opportunity to address the real needs of the 1 million Americans who will wake up tomorrow with no job, no prospects and no unemployment benefits. Let us measure the decency of this House and the capacity for compassion in this country by extending unemployment benefits for all the people of the country who need them, not simply those covered by this bill. Of course we will support this bill to help those who are helped, but it is a tragedy that we are leaving behind 1 million Americans who need work.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Also in this bill, 51,000 of my constituents will not receive the extension, either.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentlewoman will yield, and they have exhausted those benefits and have no benefits now.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. This is a strong and good bill on which there are points of serious disagreement. One of those points of disagreement is the extent to which environmental protection laws should be rolled back in the case of military operations. Many of us on our side and some on the other believe they should not be rolled back as much. There are those on the majority side who believe that this is the right way to go. What we are asking for is a chance to debate that question and take a vote. In this bill, there is a serious disagreement about the rollback of the civil protective rights of civilian workers in the Department of Defense. We believe it goes far too far. Many on the other side believe it is the right thing to do. All we are asking for is the right to debate that question and take a vote. It is the supreme and bitter irony that the world's greatest fighting force that defends democracy around the world with great skill and in whom we take great pride, that the bill that funds that fighting force is not being pursued under basic democratic principles. Our military force defends democracy around the world, but we do not have democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. My colleagues, how does one get on the agenda of the United States House of Representatives? If you are in the financial industry and you are interested in changing the rules for giving pension advice, you can get on the agenda. If you are one of a plethora of special interests that is interested in changing the Internal Revenue Code, you can get on the agenda. But if you are one of the millions of people suffering unemployment in this country and you want this House to take up the question of whether your unemployment benefits ought to be extended, you cannot seem to get on the agenda. Now, I know that there are people who believe that some of the people who are on unemployment are not trying hard to find a job, and I am sure there are some for whom that description is accurate; but I know this is true: for every three Americans looking for a job today, there is one job. One. And there are hundreds of thousands of people who at the end of this month are going to lose their ability to pay their bills because they are one of the two people who cannot get that one job out of every three people who is unemployed. It is the business of this country, and it should be the business of this House, to debate whether or not an extension of unemployment benefits is justifiable for those people. I feel strongly that it is. I know there are Members who believe that it is not. I respect their views. The majority ought to respect our right to bring to this floor, before this House and before this country, the question as to whether those benefits ought to be extended. In many households, Mr. Speaker, this is not some theoretical debate. It is a question of whether you will be able to pay your rent on the first of June, whether you will be able to pay your other bills on the first of June. Let us do the people's business. Let us put on the agenda of this House the question of whether to extend unemployment benefits. Oppose the previous question.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would urge our colleagues to support this well-reasoned and well- thought-out Democratic substitute. It differs in many ways, and it is an improvement in many ways from the underlying bill. I would like to highlight a few of those improvements, first in the area of investment advice. This substitute does provide for investment advice for workers and pensioners, but it clearly favors independent investment advice. It provides that workers and pensioners will receive advice from qualified individuals who do not have an interest in the outcome of the advice that they are giving. Second, this substitute, unlike the underlying bill, deals with the problem of cash balance plans. Cash balance plans, which I believe have been improperly used in many cases, have become a nightmare for pensioners, where people who thought that they had a guaranteed income at a set level for the rest of their lives have confronted the nightmare scenario where they, in fact, have much less, sometimes as much as 50 percent less than they thought they had in their pensions. This substitute contains a very simple provision that empowers each employee to choose between conversion of his or her pension to a cash balance plan or retention of his or her pension in its more traditional form. This bill puts a stop to the secret transactions involving executive pension compensation and pension provisions. This substitute also requires that in collective bargaining negotiations, that companies be candid and comprehensive in their disclosures to bargaining units with whom they are negotiating. Very recently in the problems regarding American Airlines, we saw the situation where unions received significant misrepresentations as to the financial provisions of their employers and agreed to massive cutbacks in their compensation packages based upon those misrepresentations. This substitute would outlaw such a provision. In summary, the substitute addresses the underlying problems and causes of the Enron scandal. I would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the author of the substitute. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the ranking member, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who speaks with passion and conviction for people struggling to get ahead around our country. (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who is the author of a key provision of the substitute regarding the prevention of the abuse of cash balance plans. (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the bill that is on the floor. There have been two trends taking place in American life in recent months and years. The first is an outbreak of conflict of interest in the financial world of America. A few days ago, the attorney general of New York State, together with other law enforcement officials, announced a global settlement against a large number of investment firms because those firms were rather routinely giving advice that was conflicted and, therefore, not in the best interests of investors. The common practice was that the investment banking side of the firm was out hawking certain securities and trying to sell certain deals. And then the advice side of the firm was telling the retail clients of the firm to buy into those very same deals. It became obvious that the advice being given by these financial houses was not in the best interests of the investor; it was in the best interests of the financial house. It was a scandal that has rocked Wall Street to its foundations. It has caused some significant problems in the market. It caused this Congress to take significant steps in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of last year. It was an unwelcome intrusion into the marketplace of American finance. The second trend is that more and more Americans have become their own board of trustees for their own pension fund. Twenty-five years ago, the way most people's pensions were is that they worked for an employer, the employer put money into a pension fund, there was a board of directors or board of trustees for that pension fund that invested the money, and, when you retired, every month you got a check based upon how much money you were entitled to under that plan. In recent years many employers have shifted to self-directed accounts. Commonly these are known as 401(k)s, where instead of the employer deciding how the money is invested, the constituent, the individual, decides how the money is invested, and, in effect, our constituents become their own board of trustees for their own pension plans. There is today $1.8 trillion of American pension money invested in these 401(k)s. Now, one would think that when we have a trend of tremendous conflict of interest problems in the financial industry and a huge jump in the number of pension dollars in self-directed accounts that the House would be about the business of trying to find ways to assure that we eliminated any possibility for conflict of interest when people give advice to pensioners and workers as to how to invest their pension funds. In fact, since 1974, that has been the law. It is illegal under present law for a conflicted adviser to give advice. The bill before the House today lifts that prohibition and makes it legal. In other words, what the attorney general of New York and the securities agencies of the Federal Government labored so hard to make unlawful in the rest of the economy, the House is now trying to make lawful with respect to people's pension funds. Common sense tells us we want to go in the other direction. We want to reduce or eliminate conflicts of interest in investment advice. This bill authorizes and legalizes those conflicts of interest. It makes no sense. If one liked the Enron scandal, one will love what will happen if conflicted, unfettered investment advice visits the $1.8 trillion of America's pensions held in these funds. Mr. Speaker, this bill should be rejected, and the Democratic substitute that we will debate later should be adopted.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have left on our side.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.