Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. After much thought and with deep conviction, I rise in strong support of this resolution. There is no task more grave or serious than the task of putting at risk the lives of people. The decision we are about to make will in fact put at risk the lives of the young patriots who wear the uniform of this country so well and so proudly. And it will put at risk innocent lives of people in Iraq who deserve better. I support this resolution because it will save lives. It will manifest the principled purpose of this country to use our great might and power as a force for saving life. Tonight Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government maintain an arsenal of weapons of mass death. Iraq tonight possesses biological weapons. It possesses chemical weapons. The best estimate of the most optimistic observers, in 5 to 7 years Iraq will possess nuclear weapons. Others are more pessimistic. They believe it will be a matter of months. I believe that failure to act is the greatest risk to innocent life in this country, in Iraq, and around the world. There are principled and patriotic people in this debate, many of my friends who take a different position than I do. I respect their patriotism. I listen carefully to their views, but I must say I disagree with what they have to say. Some say Iraq will not use these weapons of mass death because the leader of Iraq, although evil, is not suicidal. I share with the President the conviction that I am not willing to risk the lives of any Americans or any people anywhere on a prediction on the behavior of Saddam Hussein. There are others who argue that although Saddam Hussein possesses these weapons of mass death, he cannot use them against us because he cannot deliver them against us. This is not the case. Tonight American troops are within the range of his missiles, and perhaps even more importantly, we are all within reach of the use of these weapons through unconventional means: anthrax sprayed by crop dusters, sarin gas pumped through our subway system, smallpox virus dumped into the heating or air conditioning system of a shopping mall or an office building. Anyone who believes that we are beyond the reach of terrorist weapons has missed the lessons in the last 13 months in America. There are those that argue that we should wait for the United Nations Security Council to agree with our assessment of the compelling need to remove this risk. I support and encourage the President and his administration to seek that support from the United Nations. But Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it, these weapons of mass death are not pointed at the Germans who doubt the scope of this risk. They are not pointed at Saddam's Arab neighbors who scoff at the necessity of this mission. These weapons of mass death are meant to kill Americans, and we will not and should not ask anyone's permission to defend the people of this country. There are those who say that we should give weapons inspections another chance. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) laid out chapter and verse just how many chances we have already given. On 13 occasions since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Iraq has violated the weapons inspection agreements. After each such occasion, they promised the next time to comply. The next time never comes. We should heed the advice of four dozen U.N. weapons inspectors who told this Congress and this country on the record that there will never be effective disarmament of the Iraqi arsenal of mass death until there is a government in Baghdad that fully cooperates with that effort. We hear others say that we should not proceed because what follows Saddam Hussein in Iraq might be worse, that it will cause disruption around that area of the world. This is not a matter that we should take lightly. However, there is nothing worse than a despot with weapons of mass death that can be used against the people of this country. Madam Speaker, throughout history Members of this body have faced moments when they have to change history. Our predecessors during the American Revolution had their moment, and they chose to rebel and create independence for this country. Our predecessors at the time of the Civil War had the painful choice of waging war to keep the Union whole. They had their moment, and they rose to the occasion. Our predecessors in the 1940s had their moment when they had to die to frontally take on the evil of Nazi Germany and its allies around the world, and they rose to the occasion. Madam Speaker, this is our moment. This is the moment when we will begin to change history toward a path where there is liberation, liberation of the people of Iraq from tyranny and liberation of the people of America and the rest of the world from the fear of terror. Let us seize our moment, Republicans and Democrats together, and vote for this resolution.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I share my friend from California's profound respect for the gentleman from Maine. I work with him on the Committee on Armed Services, and every issue he approaches in a very thoughtful and reasonable way. I have a very different interpretation than he put on this resolution. The statement that our role is finished after this week as a Congress, I do not read the resolution that way, in two very important respects. The first is that the resolution explicitly references the War Powers Act and the reporting requirements that the President has under that act to come back to this body, consult with us and pay due homage to our co-equal constitutional responsibilities. Second, obviously the appropriations process is an ongoing process that gives us a frequent and important role in assessing the decisions that the executive branch makes. I would also say that the reference to the language of ``as the President determines,'' it is important to understand what precedes that language. What precedes it is an exhaustion, a complete playing out of the United Nations process and the weapons inspection process that so many people wish to see. This was an important improvement in this resolution that the majority leader of the Democratic Party was successful in negotiating. So I believe that this resolution does not run the risks that the gentleman from Maine referenced. I think that we have our continuing constitutional role, it is our obligation to exercise it, and that the President's determinations follow a careful engagement at the United Nations and an acute assessment of the success or failure of the weapons inspection process.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get on the record a response to one of the prior assertions about the level of preparedness, equipment and training for U.S. troops who might be sent into harm's way. I am proud to serve on the Committee on Armed Services, along with many of the Members who are here on the floor at this time. I believe we may be the most bipartisan or nonpartisan committee in the House. As we led up to this debate, we have been briefed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other leaders of the military who have assured us that every conceivable means of protection, every conceivable tool that can be made available to the men and women who serve in uniform will be made available to them. We, in turn, have assured the military leaders that we as a committee and we as a Congress will spare no expense to make sure that is the case. I just do not want there to be any misconception that if it is necessary to send these young men and women into combat that they will not have the very finest and best tools of protection.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in recognition of the 42nd anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus. On October 1, 1960, Cyprus broke free from 80 years of British colonial rule to become its own independent Republic. While the tragic events in this region over the past four decades have overshadowed its progress, the government of the Republic of Cyprus remains committed to the core principles enshrined in the Cyprus Constitution that guarantee basic rights and freedoms to both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. This year, Cyprus' Independence Day occurs at a time of great hope and optimism for its people. The economic and political progress that Cyprus has made during its young history has made it a leading candidate for membership in the European Union, and it is expected that a formal invitation to enter the EU will be extended to them at the end of this year. As resolutions have been introduced in both the House and Senate expressing the sense of Congress that security, reconciliation, and prosperity for all Cypriots can be best achieved within the context of membership in the EU, this is certainly a favorable advancement for the prosperous future of Cyprus. Despite the hardships and trauma caused by the ongoing Turkish occupation, Cyprus has registered remarkable economic growth, and the people living in the government- controlled areas enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living. Sadly, however, the citizens who reside within the occupied area continue to be mired in poverty as a result of the policies implemented by the Turkish occupants. This year's celebration is also marked by significant advances in U.S.-Cyprus relations. The United States Congress has adopted several resolutions stating that the status quo in Cyprus is unacceptable, and has called for international efforts to resolve the Cyprus occupation on the basis of international law. In return, the government of Cyprus has taken many concrete and active steps to assist the U.S. with the war on terrorism, including blanket clearances for U.S. military aircraft, the sharing of intelligence, the introduction of new criminal laws and regulations to deter and punish terrorism, and endorsement of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which serves to freeze the assets of terrorists and their supporters. The relationship between Cyprus and the United States is strong and enduring. The people of Cyprus appreciate the leadership that America has shown in trying to end the division of Cyprus and bring about reunification. At the same time, the people of Cyprus stand with the American people and share in their firm resolve to uphold the ideals of freedom, justice, and democracy. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Republic of Cyprus on the progress they have made during their first 42 years of independence. In addition, let's take this opportunity to recommit the United States Congress to continuing their blossoming relationship with the Cypriot government and working towards a peaceful, agreeable resolution to the Turkish occupation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In the summer of 2001 the majority came to this floor with its tax cut proposal and told us the following: for the new budget year that we are heading into, for every $100 that we were going to spend, we would have about $115 of income coming in without touching Social Security. Well, they underestimated the impact of the recession. They understandably could not foresee the impact of September 11, and they irresponsibly went ahead with the tax cut in the face of good economic judgment. So where we do stand today? For every $100 we are scheduled to spend, we do not have $115 coming in. We have $90, $90. The reason that we do not have a budget on the floor is the majority does not want to confront the hard consequences of that problem that it created, because there are only three choices. The first choice is to slash education, health care, environmental protections, veterans benefits, lots of things that lots of people on their side support. So they cannot bring to this floor appropriations bills that do that and pass them. The second option would violate a seeming religious principle of the majority which would be to renegotiate the size and speed of the tax cut, which is what a rational, sensible approach to this problem would be; but it violates the creed of the Republican Party, so that is off the table. The third option is to do what we are going to do after the voters have spoken on November 5, and that is to cover the hole in the budget by spending Social Security money. The majority does not want its Members to face the electorate in 33 days and explain they voted to run this government by spending Social Security money. So rather than renegotiate their sacred tax cut, rather than bring to this floor a budget bill that would reflect the conscience of the choice they irresponsibly made in 2001, they are playing rope-a-dope with the American public. So we will come back next week and pass another extension and the week after that and pass another extension. The problem with this rule and the problem with this continuing resolution is that it misrepresents the choices that confront the American public. The majority is going to run the government by spending Social Security money. We object to that. And we forcefully object to the unanimous consent that they will not talk about the consequences of making that choice. We should defeat this rule. We should sit down as Republicans and Democrats, renegotiate this country's budget, pull us back out of the red, pull our economy back up, and stop the charade that we see on the House floor today.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Hawaii for yielding me the time. I rise in sincere remembrance of a gentle soul and a good friend, Patsy Mink. I offer my condolences to her husband John, daughter Wendy, and my thanks to the service that the entire family has given by permitting their wife and mother to serve this Nation. Patsy has gone from our lives, but she will touch the lives of so many people tomorrow whose names she will never know. Tomorrow there will be welfare mothers who will get up and have a first-rate child care center to take their sons and daughters to because Patsy Mink made sure that would happen. Tomorrow there will be young women who will have a chance to learn math or science or go on to engineering careers because Patsy Mink helped lead the fight to let little girls know that they could be anything they wanted to achieve in any discipline through her work on women's equity in education. A few hours ago on the east coast, and Mr. Speaker, right now across the country, young women are coming home from sports practice, from soccer and field hockey and all the other sports that young women play. And the most talented ones know that they have a chance to compete now at the intercollegiate level because Patsy Mink wrote title IX and made sure it stuck. Patsy Mink will touch my life for years to come. My two greatest achievements are 9 years old and 7 years old, my two daughters; and I take comfort at this time of great loss from the fact that they will live in a world where they can be anything they set their minds to, reach any heights to which they aspire, because in large part this firebrand of a woman stood on this floor and served this country. It is my honor to call her a friend. My great expression of condolences to her family. May God rest her soul.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is a serious disagreement about the underlying bill and whether or not it poses the right solution to the malpractice crisis. Aside from that, there should be no dispute over what this bill should and should not do with respect to State laws that many of our States have passed to protect patients against abuses by the managed care industry. This bill should have no effect on those underlying State laws. If this motion to recommit is not adopted, I believe the best analysis is that this bill would have the effect of repealing or substantially neutralizing and weakening those State law protections. The purpose of the motion to recommit is to make it explicit in the statute that this bill, if enacted into law, would not preempt State patient protections laws. So, for example, there are States that have laws that say that if a person went to their primary care provider and she suggested that a person needed a series of tests regarding possible malignancy and the managed care company refused to pay for the tests regarding the possible malignancy and they developed a malignancy, developed cancer, got sick as a result of it, under these State patient protection laws there are certain remedies that that patient and her family would now have, the ability to get a review before the decision was made by an external objective body and the ability, if the decision were not reversed, the ability to recover damages resulting from the arbitrary medical malpractice by the managed care company. This has been a principle embraced by Republicans and Democrats in State legislatures around the country. In fact, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned, the President of the United States embraced such a bill when he was chief executive of the State of Texas. The good work that the Texas legislature has done, and other legislatures have done around the country, would be imperiled and put at risk if this motion to recommit is not adopted. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the underlying bill; but even those who agree with the underlying bill, I believe, did not set out with the intention of repealing State patient protection statutes. I know that the majority has added a sense of Congress provision to the underlying bill that says it is not really our intention. Frankly, there is a better way for us to express our intention than simply expressing the sense of Congress. It is to write a statute or to write a provision in the statute that says that State patient protection provisions are not repealed as a result of the adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I think Members should support the motion to recommit whether they are for the underlying bill, or whether they are joining those of us who oppose the underlying bill. If Members respect and support the right of their State legislature to enact State laws that would protect Members' constituents against abuses by managed care companies and State laws, Members should vote for the motion to recommit. I would urge Republicans and Democrats to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member, soon to be chairman, my friend, for yielding me the time. There is a malpractice insurance crisis in our country. The woman who delivered my two daughters no longer delivers babies these days because of that crisis, and I understand it. I also understand the way to end that problem is not to enact the greatest transfer of income in history from victims of medical malpractice to insurance companies, and that is what this underlying legislation does. What it says is that people who have been the victims of medical mistake, medical malpractice and medical error will see an arbitrary ceiling on what they can recover when something has happened to them. What the bill does not say is that the savings that would no doubt accrue to the benefit of insurance companies must accrue to the benefit of the physicians who paid in malpractice premiums. The iron rule of insurance law in America is when insurance companies get the money they keep it. They do not share it with the doctors. They do not share it with the patients. They keep it. This is an insurance company relief act at a time when our physicians and patients need relief.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said this is a meaningless resolution. I beg to differ with the gentleman; I think this resolution is very meaningful because it shows that the majority in the face of real economic stress and pain in our country is more interested in positioning for the election that is coming in 6 weeks than it is in solving the country's problems. Since the beginning of 2001, 2 million people have gone on the unemployment rolls. In the last 12 months, 1 million people have exhausted their economic unemployment benefits, have seen them run out. Since the beginning of 2001, the stock markets have seen $4.5 trillion of wealth evaporate, much of that wealth in the pension funds of American workers, American retirees. We have seen the equity markets themselves lose 40 percent of their value. We have seen the spread between short- and long-term interest rates, a key indicator of future happenings in our economy, grow wider than it has in recent history. We have seen a Federal Government that was bringing in $108 for every $100 that we spent at the beginning of 2001, now bringing in $90 for every $100 that we spend, and covering the difference by borrowing from the Social Security trust fund, running the government on Social Security money that should be there for the future. The right thing to do would be to renegotiate the country's budget, to bring to this floor legislation that would really make a difference to the people that have been stressed, an extension of unemployment benefits for people who cannot find work, a means of creating more jobs in the short run for people who cannot find work, provisions that would truly strengthen pension plans, and one of those provisions can be brought to the floor if Members vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that is the idea of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), which says that a self-regulating concept in pension plans will be that whatever the top guy in the organization gets, everybody else has to get, too. If there is a restriction on what can be done with stock that applies to the person who cleans the office at night, then it applies to the person who owns the office building. If there are benefits for the person high up in the executive suite, a similar kind of a benefit has to apply to every single man and woman who stands under that person on the company's organizational table. This is a real change that would make a real difference at a time of real problems. I regret that what we are going to do if the majority passes this rule is pass a couple of ceremonial resolutions to take note of what we wish the other body would do. We cannot control what the other body does. It has a conscience and a rhythm all of its own. That is what the framers intended. However, we ought to do something rather than nothing.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the distinguished majority whip knows that the people of Texas have lost $11.47 billion in their pension assets since these scandals began, and I am pleased to hear him say that a conference would be necessary to fix the problems in the bill that passed the House in April. He is right. There are a lot of problems, and one of those problems is best understood if we thought about what would happen if the majority's bill that had passed through this House were the law at the time the Enron scandal came along. If Enron was working with a financial firm that was doing its investment banking on the one hand and giving investment advice to its pensioners in their 401(k) plan on the other hand, the majority's bill would make it legal for that financial firm to give advice to employees that would encourage them to buy Enron stock. We would have to wonder whether that advice was based upon the wisdom of buying Enron stock and filling up a pension 401(k) with it or whether it was based upon the reward that that financial firm is earning as an investment banker in the form of millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars of fees by representing Enron. The scandal that has roiled the market, the scandal that has caused the evaporation of $4.5 trillion of pension assets is all about conflict of interest. The flaw in the bill that the majority passed out of here 160 days ago is that it institutionalizes into the law conflict of interest. The chairman is right when he says that American workers need sound investment advice, but he is incorrect when he says that this is the kind of advice that they need. American workers need independent, unbiased investment advice about where to put their money. The majority assures them just the opposite, which is why this motion should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for votes on September 5, 2002 because I was taking my kids to their first day of school. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4727, the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002, and also in favor of H. Res. 94, honoring the contributions of Venus and Serena Williams.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the destruction wrought by the large fires in Colorado and Arizona make this an appropriate occasion to honor all those who seek to prevent and mitigate the awful destructive power of fire. Let me take a moment to commend one individual, Arthur Mercurio, for his lifelong service to the cause of fire prevention. He recently received the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) Fire Prevention Award for his efforts. As a member of of Collingswood (NJ) Volunteer Fire Company #1 for 52 years, he has been an advocate for fire prevention and safety. As President of the company for 12 years, Mr. Mercurio was instrumental in developing a program to get smoke detectors to elderly and other high-risk citizens. Mr. Mercurio's lifelong dedication and leadership in the volunteer fire service should serve as a model and inspiration for firefighters everywhere and has strengthened my own commitment and enthusiasm for public service.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Animal Fighting Enforcement Act. This legislation targets the reprehensible and surprisingly widespread activities of dogfighting and cockfighting, in which animals are bred and trained to fight, often drugged to heighten their aggression, and placed in a pit to fight to the death-- all for their amusement and illegal wagering of the animals' handlers and the spectators. These are indefensible activities, and our state laws reflect public disdain for these forms of animal cruelty. Dogfighting is banned in all 50 states, and it is a felony in 46 states. Cockfighting is banned in 47 states, and it is a felony in 26 states. Even though there is a something verging on a national consensus that dogfighting and cockfighting should be treated as criminal conduct, the industries continue to thrive. According to The Humane Society of the United States, there are 11 underground dogfighting publications. There are numerous above-ground cockfighting magazines, including The Gamecock, The Feathered Warrior, and Grit & Steel that promote cockfights, rally cockfighters to defend the practice, and advertise and sell fighting birds and the accoutrements of animal fighting. Earlier this year, the House and Senate passed legislation to close loopholes in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act and bar any interstate shipment or exports of dogs or birds for fighting. That was a much-needed and long-overdue action by the House, and I commend the leadership provided on that legislation by Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Tom Tancredo, and Collin Peterson. Senators Wayne Allard and Tom Harkin led the parallel effort in the other chamber. The legislation was designed to help the states enforce their laws and provide a strong federal statement and statute against dogfighting, and cockfighting. In states where cockfighting is illegal, cockfighters had been using the loophole in federal law as a smokescreen to conceal their animal fighting activities; they claimed that they were merely raising and possessing birds to sell to legal cockfighting states and countries, when in reality they were often engaging in illegal fights in their own states. It makes enforcement of state laws against cockfighting very difficult. During consideration earlier in this Congress of the Farm bills, the House and Senate passed identical versions of legislation to close the loopholes in the law. Unfortunately, the conferees removed a provision, identical in both bills, to increase jail time for individuals who violate any provision of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. The House and Senate increased the maximum jail time from one year to two years, seeking to make this illegal animal fighting a federal felony. U.S. Attorneys have told humane organizations and others that they are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases with such a modest penalty. They will be far more likely to pursue cases if it is a felony offense. My legislation today seeks to restore what the House and Senate originally passed in terms of penalties. The adoption of this provision will bring federal law in better alignment with state laws. As I mentioned previously, 46 states have either dogfighting or cockfighting felony provisions. It is fitting and appropriate that the federal government treat dogfighting and cockfighting as felony offenses. It is well known that these forms of animal cruelty are often associated with drug traffic, illegal firearms possession, violence to people, and illegal gambling. In short, other criminal conduct goes hand in hand with animal fighting. My legislation also bans the interstate shipment of deadly knives and gaffs, which are the implements attached to the birds' legs to heighten the bloodletting and expedite the conclusion of fights. These knives and gaffs are sold through cockfighting magazines and through the Internet, and it is time that this traffic in these deadly implements is halted. A number of states have prohibitions on the sale of these implements, but it is time to adopt a national standard. Finally, this legislation improves and updates other enforcement language in the Animal Welfare Act, provisions that were adopted more than a quarter century ago, on forfeiture and disposition of animals seized by law enforcement once they make arrests of individuals participating in illegal animal fights. I thank several colleagues for adding their names as original cosponsors, and hope that the committees of jurisdiction give this legislation proper and prompt attention and action. I hope it can be passed before the 107th Congress completes its work.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, due to family obligation I was unable to cast a vote on the first four votes of July 25, 2002. Had I been present. I would have cast the following votes: On H.R. 3763, The Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002, I would have voted ``yes''. On the motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 4546, I would have voted ``yes''. On motion to close portions of the conference to H.R. 4546, I would have voted ``yes.'' On motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4946 as amended, to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide health care incentives related to long-term care, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in very strong support of this well-thought-out amendment. Let me preface my remarks by saying how much respect and admiration I have for the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I want to acknowledge the hours and hours of work they have put in, their integrity, their dedication to this process. I think they have done their country a great service, and I commend each and every member of the committee for that. Many Members of the Chamber will remember a lot about the events of September 11, 2001, as do I. I also remember how I felt on the morning of September 12, 2001. I woke up, and the first thought that came to my mind was that in the 11 years that I had served in this body I had voted to spend about a half a trillion dollars' worth of taxpayers' money on building an intelligence establishment; and I asked myself what role I had, what responsibility I had in what seemed to me to be a failure of that establishment to defend our country against the calamities of September 11. I am not here tonight to point any fingers at any agency or any person. I do not know what the chain of causation was that led to the events of September 11, but here is one thing that I do know. I do know that each one of us and each Member in the other body and each institution in American government has questions that need to be asked about it and about its role. I want to reemphasize, the leadership and work of the individuals who served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not the point of my remarks. I wish that we all had the degree of expertise and effort that these individuals have put in, but I think we have to ask some hard questions about the House and about the other body, about what we have done, about what we have failed to do, about what policy- making institutions in this country have done dating back to 1995 and some of the other controversial decisions and policies that have been implemented. I think we are never going to be able to go forward and put together a prospective strategy to do everything we can to avoid another calamity like the one we saw last September unless every institution is subjected to scrutiny; and with all due respect to my colleagues in this House, I do not believe that we can subject ourselves to that same kind of scrutiny because we have a vested interest in the answer to that question. No impugning of anyone's integrity or ability, but I would simply make the point that part of this assessment of the future strategy of success for our intelligence capability must include answering the hard question, What responsibility do we have to bear for the decisions that led up to September 11? I think the question needs to be evaluated by people outside of this institution who do not stand for election and do not stand for the back and forth of the legislative process that we do. So, again, in full respect for and commendation for the work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and its various subcommittees, I believe we need the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Roemer) proposal. I think we need to have people outside of our own structure take a look at our own responsibility, and I think is the way to do it. I would urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, in part because I believe it strikes a proper balance between the flexibility needed in the executive branch and the due prerogatives of those of us in the Congress on this very important issue of the future prosecution of the war against terrorism. This bill leaves intact the law that exists as of today with respect to the future prosecution of the global war against terrorism. That law contemplates three circumstances. The first would be an emergency urgent circumstance where the President, consistent with his constitutional authority, could act to defend the country. This bill in no way limits, nor should it limit, that prerogative. The second circumstance that the present law contemplates is a circumstance where there is clear and compelling evidence of a connection between any other state or organization and the events of September 11 in fostering, harboring, planning, aiding and abetting the actions of September 11. Under those circumstances, under the law, the President is already authorized to take steps to defend the country and this bill leaves that intact. The third circumstance contemplated by the law would be a circumstance that is not emergency, where there is not a demonstration of a clear and compelling link between the actions of another state and the activities of September 11, and it is contemplated that under those circumstances the President, consistent with the Constitution, would be required to come to the House and to the Senate and seek authority to further prosecute activities in defense of the country. That is the law, and that is the balance that is struck, and this bill leaves that balance intact. For that and for many other reasons, I would urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote in favor of this very necessary funding to continue to prosecute our very successful efforts in this field.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Greek authorities and the Greek people for their successful apprehension of several members of the November 17 terrorist group, including the group's mastermind Alexandros Yiotopoulos. This terrible organization has group operated with impunity underground for more than a quarter of a century and inflicted egregious harm on both Greek people and the United States. They are behind the killings of 23 people, including Richard Welch, the CIA station chief in Athens in 1975. I understand that three of the captured members have already confessed to the killings, including the murders of military attaches from the United States and Britain. This is just one-step in our march towards victory in the war on terrorism but it is an important step, I applaud the efforts of the Greek authorities and the vigilance of the Greek people.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Juanita Johnson-Clark as she retires after 25 years of public service in Camden County. While I must be in Washington, DC during a ceremony in her honor, I want to recognize her achievement here in the House of Representatives. Juanita Johnson-Clark's had work at the Camden County Department of Health and Human Services has benefited scores of people in South Jersey. I especially comment her important work to help people with substance abuse problems. I wish her continued success with whatever she chooses to pursue during this new phase of her life.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, so there was no opportunity in the full committee to offer amendments to this bill either?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose what is a good bill. I oppose it because there is a larger principle at stake here, and that is the reasonable right of the minority to have its say in the process of writing legislation. The House has been here before, Mr. Speaker. Exactly 11 years and 1 day ago, a Member of this House came to the floor and protested a procedure and used these words: ``This rule might aptly be called the representative democracy displacement rule since its substitutes the judgment of the majority leadership for that of the 435 freely elected Members of this House. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that as dictatorial governments around the world are allowing democracy to flourish, democracy does not flourish in the House of Representatives.'' That speaker was not a Democrat disenchanted with the present majority, it was the present chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who used those words 11 years ago. He was talking about a rule where the minority was given a substitute of its own version of a bill that would outlaw the use of replacement workers in a strike. We have not been given such prerogatives. When the debt ceiling limitation was brought to this floor, the minority was not given the right to offer our own plan. When the prescription drug benefit legislation was brought to this floor, the minority was not given the right to offer its own plan. With this bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) just said, our ideas to forgive student loans for those willing to teach in disadvantaged schools, to forgive the student loans of heroes who gave up their lives on September 11, to make sure that civil rights laws are enforced under vocational education programs, our ideas were deemed unworthy of being considered by this body. Mr. Speaker, this process is unworthy of this body. It is one more example of the arrogant imposition of majority will. It is one more reason why people should rise up and vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the ranking member if there was a markup of this bill in the subcommittee where we would have had an opportunity to offer our amendments?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to travel to Washington, DC on July 10, 2002 because I was attending the burial of Firefighter Thomas G. Stewart III, who died in the line of duty on July 4th, 2002 in Gloucester City, New Jersey. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' of rollcall No. 292, H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. For every $100 the Federal Government is spending, we are now bringing in about $90 worth of revenue. The way we are making up the other $10 is to borrow it. Some of it comes from the Social Security trust fund, and the rest of it comes from the private capital markets. We have reached our limit, or we are about to reach our limit as to what we can borrow. Logic tells us that what we ought to do is sit down and figure out how we got here. I think it is true that the terrorist attack had something to do with that, indisputably. I think it is true that the recession had a lot to do with it, indisputably. But the other side has to admit that the $2 trillion tax cut that they recklessly put through this House last year also has got something to do with it. The two parties ought to come together, discuss the alternatives, extend the debt ceiling tonight by an amount necessary to cover us during that period of time, and put our house back in order. That is a reasonable, sensible approach, which is why the other side will not let it get to the floor.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank and commend the authors of this very worthy legislation for bringing it to the floor, but, Mr. Speaker, I must lament the questions that we are not answering about Social Security, which I think are far more fundamental. As we speak today, for every $100 our government is spending, we are only bringing in about $90 worth of revenue. The way we are making up the $10 difference is to reach first into the Social Security Trust Fund to fund the operations of this government. That is the number one issue about Social Security, stopping that practice. We need to bring together the leadership of the House and the Senate to sit around the kitchen table, as many American families did after the disaster of September 11 to figure out how to change their budget, we need to figure out how to change ours. A second major Social Security question that is not being dealt with on this floor is the idea of privatizing all or part of the Social Security system. This is an idea that is worthy of debate. I think it has many flaws, many risks, and many pitfalls. There are those who in good faith disagree with my conclusions, but no one should disagree that, before this Congress adjourns for the year, ideas about the privatization of Social Security should be brought to this floor, debated, and voted upon, so the American people can see where the Members stand and what they believe about these very important questions. So I commend the authors for this very worthy bill, but I must lament the fact we are not answering the fundamental fact about Social Security: How do we stop dipping into the fund to fund the operations of the United States Government? That is what we need to focus on.