Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am one of the people who voted for the underlying bill. I think it is excellent in many ways. I agree with the gentleman from Maryland's analysis and the gentleman from Ohio's analysis of the underlying bill. But I am not going to vote for this extension today, and I would adopt the reasoning that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) put forward just a few minutes ago. Right now for every $100 that we are spending to run our government, we are bringing in $80 worth of revenue. We are borrowing the other $20. We are borrowing about half of it from the Social Security trust fund, and we are going to borrow the other half from the private capital markets. I have come to the floor in the last several weeks and voted against a lot of things which I would like to see happen. I would like to see more aid to our exporters, but I voted against the Export- Import Bank reauthorization. I would like to see the marriage penalty permanently done away with, but I voted against the permanent cessation of it. I am one who favors the permanent repeal of the estate tax, but I did not vote for the permanent repeal of the estate tax. And as strongly as I feel about the merits of this underlying bill, and they are very meritorious, I think the principle of doing anything that reduces revenue by borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and from the private capital markets that fuel our economy is a mistake. It is painful to oppose things that one embraces, and I embrace these; and I certainly do not mean to imply that the supporters of this bill are fiscally irresponsible. They are not. But it is my judgment that the highest priority of this country at this time is to get back into the black. The highest priority, therefore, will lead me to oppose the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the patriotic efforts of one of my constituents. In 2001, Gloucester County Times columnist Jim Six was able to return to a Texas woman a dog tag believed to have belonged to her brother, a Marine who was captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and who reportedly died in a prisoner of war camp in 1970. His body has never been recovered. Six, through the efforts of an acquaintance, bought more than 400 dog tags from vendors in Vietnam in 1993 and is attempting to find more matches. I would like to submit a list of the names on the dog tags for the Record. A.C. Aalseth, Thomas A. Abe, R.D. Ahrens, Kem R. Akers, Paul J. Albano, Norman Allen, G.B. Alleyne, Clayton J. Anderson, John R. Anderson, Robert C. Anderson, Jr., Russell A. Anderson, Albert Annunziata, J.E. Armistead, W.J. Armstrong, Raymond E. Armstrong, E.M. Arnold, L.D. Arrowood, Ludwig B. Aske, and Larry D. Aveline. C.W. Baney, Jr., A.W. Bardley, Homer T. Barker, David E. Barton, W.H. Batia, R.J. Baxler, Michael W. Becktel, Morral Bennett, K.J Berman, L.E. Bethel, John D. Betlock, Ronald L. Binford, Mark D. Black, Paul T. Bobenrieth, R.O. Boehnke, Jr., F. Bonafede, David J. Bonner, Walter W. Booth, R.W. Botelho, Daniel A. Bouchard, B.A. Bounds, D. Braddy, Jr., Scott R. Bradley, Darnell L. Branch, T.C. Breshears, Jr., T.O. Brock, T.F. Broderick, C.D. Brown, Clarence Brown, Harold E. Brown, V. Brown, W.R. Brown, Jackie R. Broyles, Ralph L. Bruner, James T. Buckman, F.L. Burnett, and Vernon E. Bush, Jr. J.L. Calderon, G.A. Campbell, R.S. Campell, K.T. Caruso, Ronald G. Castor, E.C. Chamberlin, Jr., Dennis E. Chapin, I.L. Chase, J.E. Clark, J.W. Clary, L.D. Clouse, L.L. Conley, M.R. Cooksey, Robert L. Cosgrove, Jr., J.B Cothran, William J. Cotton, Ronald Creach, Charles T. Crews, E.G Croft, Michael T. Cross, Garry W. Cummings, T.A. Curd, R.T. Curry, and John Crazy Bear. Ronald G. Damn, Michael N. Damon, Ernest C. Davis, F.G. Davis, H.B. Davis, J.B. Davis, R.P. Dechicchis, J.L. Deege, Donald E. Deister, D.D. Delair, Thomas D. Delany, Robert L. Dickson, G.W. Dietz, La-Verne E. Dietz, Jr., Roosevelt H. Dillard, Edwin K. Dodd, Jr., R.O. Dorfer, C.E. Druex, D.R. Dudek, K.J. Dudley, Carlton T. Dunn, and Thomas L. Dutton. T.J. Egan, Robert S. Emerling, Steven T. Evans, and William F. Evans. R.D. Fairbairn, G.C. Falk, Russell C. Farver, A.F. Felch, Francis Fernandez, Jr., Randell B. Finch, G.A. Fink, Clayton C. Fladie, W.H. Fleck, R.N. Fletcher, Curtis J. Franklin, John E. Fox, W.K. Fox, John E. Frederick, Joseph A. Freehorn, J.E. Frye, Jr., and E.M. Fujihara. Danny R. Gaddis, John A. Galhert, John R. Gantner, Santos Garza, Jr., Dale K. Graham, E.J. Graham, R.E., Gibbs, Ernie P. Gilliam, S.D. Gilliland, R.J. Ginder, M.T. Giorsetti, Howard Gist, Jr., William F. Glendenon, James R. Golding, Herbert E. Gonzalez, M.K. Grantlen, Ronnie B. Grimes, D.W. Guffey, Robert P. Gunton, Jr., and Carlos Gutierrez. J.J. Hagan, Tony R. Hall, D.W. Hammond (matched/returned), Larry Hardin, Harley D. Harless, S.W. Hart, Willis Hart, A.L. Haulcy, Jimmy L. Heavin, Theadore L. Helm, D.R. Henderson, James F. Henderson, G.M. Hendrickson, Jesus Hernandez, Jr., Dave Heyboer, T.S. Hickman, T.D. Hobart, S.R. Hobbley, Junior Hodge, B.R. Holcomb, F. Hollier, Jr., Donald P. Hoover, L. Hopkins, Jr., Robert C. Horman, G.A. Howe, John F. Howley, James L. Huff, and Ronald D. Hurst. M.T. Ispocogee. Carl L. Jackson, James Jackson, L.D. Jacobson, R.E. James, William B. James, R.G. Jaouay, Steven C. Jefferson, John F. Jenkins, E.C. Jenson, Claude L. Johnson, David I. Johnson, Michael H. Johnson, Milton Johnson, R.M. Johnson, Ronald Johnston, Danny L. Jones, Linwood E. Jones, and R.A. Jones, Jr. G.L. Kavelaras, V.J. Kemerer, Robin S. Kent, Roland H. Kiersey, Jr., J.J. Kimbrough, Jr., Robert L. Kirk, M.C. Klepac, T.M. Knutson, Clyde K. Kobbeman, K.R. Krueger, and T.L. Kyle. C.E. Lames, Ernest C. Lammer, John F. Langowski, Jr., Gene O. Lanier, Jr., Ronald L. Lantrop, T.L. Laplaunt, C.P. Leary, John E. Leavister, D.J. Lee, Harry Lerner, W.D. Lidster, P.F. Linneman, Eddie C. Lipscoms, I.B. Livingston, Thomas E. Lloyd, J.W. Logan, lsaac Lopez, R.D. Loveridge, and Charles J. Lyons. Bruce A. Magnuson, John D. Mahonet, J.M. Mangano, Donald E. Manninig, A. Marcha, W.W. Marragos, William L. Marshall, Daniel L. Martin, William M. Martin, J.P. Martinez, R.S. Martinez, David A. Mayzlik, G.E. Mccrillis, Jr., William S. Mccune, Roger W. McDonald, Charles A. Mcduffle, R.T. Mcgettigan, Duckey McKnight, John P. Mcniel, Thomas Mesa, William G. Meyer, R.C. Mickels, B.J. Mihneski, F.M. Miller, Jr., N.J. Minucci, K.L. Mokern, C.F. Momillen, James Money, Salvador Montes, Jr., E. E. Montor, Lindy N. Moore, James N. Morgan, Kenneth D. Morgan, T.R. Morley, Franklin F. Morris, Jr., Carl J. Morton, W.D. Moss, Danny L. Murphy, David R. Murphy, Monty D. Murphy, and D.L. Myers. F. Nagy, P.E. Nance, Phillip E. Nash, F.F. Nives, and George C. Noland, R.A. O'Conner, Michael L. O'Mary, and Richard D. Ortega. Richard B. Palmer, James A. Parker, J.W. Peavy, J.L. Pell, Joseph E. Peters, D.V. Phillips, Paul C. Phillips, W.L. Phillips, P.L. Phipps, David K. Pickard, R.E. Pierson, Gale V. Pinkston, P.L. Plander, Michael J. Polly, A. Potter, D.C. Powell, A. D. Prater, T. A. Press, M.E. Price, Marvin E. Price, and C.J. Pummel. W.E. Queale. Edward E. Raiche, Bertrand Randolph, T.G. Ray, Malcolm S. Read, K.R. Reed, Jackie L. Replogle, L.B. Reynolds, Franklin Rhodes, Vincent A. Richardson, James Riley, R.J. Risk, W.T Ritenour, Joseph P. Rizzi, E. Robertson, Jr., J.F. Robertson, Jr., Isaac R. Robinson III, Lewis W.L. Robinson, Eugene J. Ruthman, and William F. Ryder. G. Sanchez, M. Sanchez, J. Santiago, R.J. Schimes, R. Schlaier, W. Schlipf, S.D. Sears, Lonie S. Sedlacek, C.F. Seiler, L.H. Sewell, H.A. Shafer, J.J. Sheridan, David S. Sherrad, R.A. Shoemaker, Lorece Sigler, Jack W. Simmons, R.L. Simpson, R.B. Sims, Robert R. Slusher, Charles L. Smith, F.F. Smith, G.T. Smith, Gary A. Smith, Michael L. Smith, Robert L. Smith, Richard C. Smoldt, R.D. Spalding, Lyleh Spear, L.M. Spears, Larry A. Stedenburg, R.B. Steinberg, Phillip M. Steiner, Stephens, William H. Stewart, E. Strange, James L. Stowell, and G.R. Suter. Raul Tamez, Jerry L. Taylor, William D. Tedhow, E.M. Telenko, Bruce R. Thomas, David J. Thomas, Donald Thomas, Edward L. Thompson, Al V. Tindell, Bobby W. Todd, D.A. Toomai, Julias A. Torrence, D.J. Traina, Ainulfo P. Torres, Fred E. Trueblood, and Jeffrey S. Tucker. Vern F. Vannier, W.L. Vanryzin, W.S. Vetter, Zane C. Vinton, and Wayne A. Volk. W.E. Wakefield, E.P. Walbridge, Barry L. Walker, J.C. Walker, D.C. Wallace, Jacob Jr. Wallace, J.L. Waller, J.F. Ward, Rocky D. Washburn, Tin Watts, R.H. Webb, Robert L. Weddington, Terrence G. Weller, S. Westmorelan, M.H. Wharton, Joseph D. White, M W. White, K.E. Wihtmer, Russell P. Wild, Richard A. Wiler, George W. Williams, Richard J. Willsher, Donald P. Wilson, Robert M. Wilson, R.E. Wingrove, A.L. Winslow, J.L. Wood, B.E. Woodman, Phillip E. Woronick, and Christolar Wright. Bruce S. York, Matthew L. Zechmeister, Hal F. Zehr, Michael J. Zent, and J.J. Ziros.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the poignant words of Major Joal Wolf (USAR) delivered as part of a speech on Memorial Day, May 27, 2002. Our nation has changed significantly since last September. Indeed, the world has changed since then. Even our Memorial Day celebrations have acquired a deeper meaning. As a nation, we have now spent many months solemnly recollecting the lives of more than 3,000 American service members and civilians who died last summer during the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Now more than ever, we recognize what it means to honor the lives of those who die in service to our great nation. Today we honor all those who died defending America--those who were active duty and those who served in our reserve components; those who were short-term volunteers, those who were drafted and those who made the military a career. We honor the veterans of every service: Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. On this day last year, our thoughts were focused on sacrifices made during previous wars. We were mindful, as well, of the daily peril of troops stationed around the world, and of those training here at home to keep us safe. Today our concerns are more immediate than reflective. Instead of focusing solely on past sacrifices, we must also face the reality of ongoing losses from our eight-month war on terrorism. It seems appropriate that today we should single out the casualties of our war against terrorism. Regrettably, the deaths of September 11 have been followed by the deaths of soldiers sent abroad to prevent other such disasters. As our commander in chief explained in plain terms at the very beginning of this war, our primary defense is to take the fight right to the doorsteps of those who spread terror. After almost a month of nonmilitary response to the attacks, U.S. military forces responded with measured force. While executed with great care and precision, we feared it was only a matter of time before America suffered more casualties. As in previous wars, our losses came in a variety of ways. Military personnel died in accidents and they were lost to hostile and friendly fire. This first war of the 21st century is being fought differently than our previous wars. Our first casualty by enemy fire was not a soldier or airman, but a CIA agent. The first soldier to fall to hostile fire--a full three months after our introduction of military forces into the region--was Sergeant Nathan Chapman of San Antonio, Texas. The recent public display of support is welcomed and not lost on those of us who served in Vietnam. Ultimately, it is the confidence of the American people--the public will to sustain the fight--that serves as the foundation for victory in any war, including the war on terror. The war on terrorism is a different war from any other our nation has ever faced, a war on many fronts against terrorists who operate in more than 60 different countries. And this is war that must be fought not only overseas, but also here at home. This war is more personal than our previous wars. Here we have an enemy not representing an entire nation, but representing evil. Instead of trying to occupy land mass or displace our military forces, the enemy wishes to destroy the very existence of America, and of other civilized nations, cultures and religions. American families must brace for continued casualties in this difficult, but inspiring, campaign. We've been awakened as a nation to the reality that the world remains a very dangerous place. To ensure peace and prosperity, we have to have the best trained and the best equipped armed forces on the face of the earth. That is a role that our country has to assume during this period. We're blessed with extraordinary men and women who risk their lives each day so that each of us can live in peace and freedom. And we ought not to forget where our forces are spread far and wide across the globe--in Korea and in Japan and in Bosnia and Kosovo and in the Sinai, just to name a few places. These are times that test us as citizens and define our nation. We are beginning to see the possibilities of a world beyond the war on terror. We have a chance, if we take it, to write a hopeful chapter in human history. All at once, a new threat to civilization is erasing old lines of rivalry and resentment between nations. The face of battle is changing with this new war, and America's military has already demonstrated it is prepared to meet this challenge. From precision air strikes to special operations troops riding horseback in the mountains of Afghanistan, we've seen our military's flexibility and commitment to its mission. I'd like to mention a book that came out recently, one that I think bears mentioning today. It's called War Letters Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars. This volume contains hundreds of letters by American military personnel from the Civil War up through the Persian Gulf War, Somalia and Bosnia. It's part of something called the Legacy Project, a nonprofit effort to preserve wartime letters. Many of these letters mailed home from the front to loved ones were the last letters ever sent by these troops. That makes for emotional reading. But for those who have never experienced the total terror and uncertainty of combat, these letters are a chilling lesson in what's at stake when we send our forces off to battle--precious lives, connected to loved ones at home, in peril. One of the more interesting similarities in the letters, regardless of the time period, is the attempt of letter writers to reassure loved ones back home of their safety. It says something of the spirit of these men and women when their courage and optimism shine through like that. These letters are full of concern for younger siblings and other relatives. They are full of desire to help boost home-front morale. And, as you can imagine, letters to parents and sweethearts alike conclude with very open expressions of love. The book's editor Andrew Carroll of Washington, DC, describes in his introduction how these individual letters spanning 140 years create a very personal narrative. ``It is the story of immeasurable suffering and astonishing violence,'' he explains. ``But it is also a story that encompasses tales of heroism, perseverance, integrity, honor, and reconciliation.'' He describes how these letters were written from a variety of circumstances: filthy trenches, flooded foxholes, the sweltering islands of the Pacific, muddy battlefields of Europe, the frozen mountains of Korea, the jungles of Vietnam and other places far from home. I would like to close by mentioning that these one million men and women made the ultimate sacrifice at the request of their nation. Their legacy will continue to live in our memory, and we honor them as we will honor those who will come after them. It is our task--the task of this generation--to provide the response to aggression and terror. We have no other choice, because there is no other peace. The contributions of our soldiers given willingly and without hesitation, demonstrate their profound and abiding devotion to this nation. On our behalf, they take risks, they go into harm's way, they shed blood--prepared to give their lives if necessary--and some have paid to preserve peace and freedom and our way of life, They continue to make incredible contributions and even more incredible sacrifices. We must never forget the service and sacrifice--enduring legacy--of these brave souls who gave their full measure for all of us. Thank you for sharing your time today in honor of these special Americans--those who paid the ultimate price in demonstrating that freedom is not free. God bless you and God bless America.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, there is no division in this House, or I believe in this country today, over the question of whether we want to fully and vigorously support the war on terrorism. I join what I would believe to be a near unanimous or unanimous body in this House in favor of providing the funds to get that done. There is a division within this House over the question of accountability. The lack of accountability is one of the real sad phenomena in American culture right now. It is even more sad that what we are doing in the House today is a continuation of that culture that says that it is okay not to be accountable. The great political scandals of our time at State and Federal and local levels for both Republicans and Democrats are usually about the failure of elected officials to be held accountable. We had a debate on this House floor within the last 2 weeks about holding welfare recipients accountable when they receive public funds, as I believe we should. There has been discussion in every corner of America about the lack of accountability of the executives of the Enron Corporation seemingly being able to take vast amounts of money from their shareholders, from their employees, from their pension funds, but not be held accountable. The division between us today is about accountability on the question of raising the national debt, on the question of borrowing $750 billion to run the government. Mr. Chairman, I readily accept the proposition that there are different views as to whether or not we should do that. There are different views as to how much we should borrow. There are different views as to how we should pay for the way that we run the government. That is what we are here to do, is to debate those different views. But that is not what divides us today. What divides us today is an unwillingness of the majority to be accountable at all on this question, to put this question up for a vote. Mr. Chairman, all across America today, Americans are voting on questions that come before community groups. Parent-teacher associations are voting this afternoon on whether to have a car wash or a cookie sale to raise money for the school library. Youth soccer leagues and civic groups and unions are going to vote tonight as to whether or not to spend their money to improve their association a certain way, or to elect someone to lead it. City councils and State legislatures are voting on questions of how to change their law and how to invest their resources. Voting is what we do in governments and in community organizations around America. What is wrong with what is going on here today is we are not voting. The Members of the majority are refusing to be held accountable for a decision that they made in 2001. In 2001, the majority rolled the dice on the U.S. economy and we all lost. In 2001, we were faced with the prospect of endless surpluses. The majority leader of the House came to this floor in March of 2001, during the debate over the tax cut, and I quote him as saying, ``Over the next 10 years, taxpayers will be overcharged by a staggering $5.6 trillion. Even after paying down the payable debt and funding all our priorities, Washington will still be awash in cash surpluses.'' So said the majority leader in March of 2001. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, he was wrong. Today we are not awash in a cash surplus, we are borrowing money to run the Federal Government. The majority does not want to deal with the consequences of their mistake. They do not want their Members to go home and say when we made the decision to drain the Federal Treasury of $2 trillion in March of 2001, and we said there would be money to pay for all these other expenses, and we would be awash in cash surpluses, we dropped the ball. Now, as a result of it, we have to borrow money to run the government. That would be the accountable thing to do. That is what the majority refuses to do. We are not asking the majority to adopt our view of what the budget should be. We are not asking the majority to cut spending or raise taxes or to come up with some formula we would come up with. We are asking the majority, we are demanding that the majority be held accountable for their decisions the way city councils and unions and boards of directors are, hold them accountable.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the House is in the business of taking votes to decide things. This week we took a vote on whether to congratulate the people of East Timor, as we should have. We took a vote on naming a Federal building, as we should have. The majority has a plan to borrow $750 billion and pass along the bill to our children. But they do not want to put that up for a vote. The choice that is before the House on this rule is very simple. Should we or should we not take a recorded vote on borrowing $750 billion? Our only chance to cast a vote on that, if the majority has its way, is on this rule vote. Defeat the rule, bring this question, like the question of congratulating the people of East Timor, before the American people so they can see where we as their elected representatives stand. Defeat this rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we are gathered tonight in a place of great and high honor. This is a Chamber in which decisions that have profoundly affected the history of our Nation and of humankind have been debated with great dignity and honor. In this Chamber we have debated questions of civil rights, questions of war and peace, questions of education and health care. And what brings honor to this institution and what humbles each one of us privileged enough to serve in this institution is the process of debate, of exchanging ideas, of laying before the people of the Nation, the people of the world, our divergent and heartfelt views. What we are doing tonight in this Chamber does not measure up to the standards of honor of this Chamber. Because this bill is being used as a vehicle to make a decision of monumental importance for the future of this country, but we are not debating that decision. We will not take a vote on that decision. We will not let the public hear our voices on that decision. There is a plan to move innocuous language in this bill that talks about protecting the full faith and credit of the United States to a conference with the other body. There is an anticipation that the other body will add a law which authorizes the borrowing of $750 billion, the bill which will be handed off to the children of this country. The bill will then be brought back here, and it will be put to a vote where that $750 billion borrowing is wrapped in the holy garments of all the good things that are in this bill, aid to the troops, aid to loyal allies of this country, reconstruction of New York City, things for which there is broad, even, unanimous appeal. The majority has chosen to hide its plan rather than to debate its plan, and that is just plain wrong. I think I know why, Mr. Chairman, the majority has chosen to do that. In 1990 when I came here, for every $100 that we needed to run the government, we were bringing in $70 worth of revenue. And we made up the difference by pilfering money from the Social Security trust fund and borrowing the rest from the private markets in a way that drove up interest rates and drove down economic activities. President Clinton made good decisions to change that. Members of Congress of both parties made good decisions to change that. The American people worked very hard, paid a lot of taxes and changed that. And by 2000, for every $100 we spent to run our country, we brought in $108. And we were told that $108 would be $115 and then $125 and then $135, and there would be all this money to spend. In the summer of 2001, the majority voted to rid the Treasury of about $2 trillion worth of money in one of the largest tax cuts in American history. There were voices, mostly on this side, who warned against the risk of that proposal. Our warnings when unheeded. The bill became law. A recession came along. The terrorist attacks of September 11 came along. And where do we find ourselves? For the fiscal year that will end this September 30, instead of having $108 in revenue for every $100 we will spend, we will have 80. So here we are once again borrowing the rest. Borrowing once again from the Social Security trust fund and robbing the pensions of Americans. Borrowing once again from the same markets that our entrepreneurs and companies looked to grow their businesses. The majority understands that the public would rebel against such a plan. So rather than bring that plan to this floor and defend it, they have chosen a procedural vehicle that will obscure it. That is the wrong thing to do. This is a bill that does much good and many of us will support it for that reason. I believe that if the leadership of this committee had been permitted to bring this bill forward, that is all the bill would have done. But the majority leadership has a different agenda. It is to obscure the agenda that will result in the borrowing of $750 billion. We vote on congratulating the people of the East Timor in this Chamber. We vote on the naming of Federal buildings. We vote on resolutions honoring people that win NCAA basketball championships; but we are not going to cast a vote on indebting the children in this country to the tune of $750 billion. It is so wrong, it is so indefensible the majority will not put this on this floor. It is the wrong way to proceed.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Taxpayers who object to paying for able-bodied people to stay on welfare should object to this bill, because what it is going to lead to in the long run is more people who are able-bodied being back on public assistance. The flaw in this bill is that it makes mothers choose between pursuing their higher education and taking care of their children. Those mothers will choose, and should choose, to take care of their children. They will work longer hours, but they will not pursue a higher education because the child care that would let them pursue that higher education and take care of their children is not guaranteed in this bill. This bill will breed a new generation of permanent low-income, public assistance recipients. We should move beyond welfare to work, from poverty to independence. Let us reject this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule. A fair rule should give us a chance to build a consensus; this rule does not. Women on public assistance with children under 6 years of age have three full-time jobs. They are expected to work, as they should, in exchange for their welfare benefits; they are expected to get an education so that they can leave welfare and get a better job, and they are expected to be full-time moms 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Only a magician can pull off that triple-threat problem, unless she has adequate child care. There are Members in this Chamber who believe strongly that the work requirement should be increased to 40 hours, and there are those of us who believe that that increase is punitive and counterproductive. There is an opportunity and a possibility for compromise, and that compromise would be to guarantee, not to promise, but to guarantee first-rate child care when needed for these moms that we are telling to get out and get an education and go to work. Amendments that would have given us a chance to strike that compromise have been stricken from this rule. Mr. Speaker, this rule fails the test of serious compromise and it should fail the vote of this House. I would urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day, which is recognized each year on the third Saturday in May. Friedreich's ataxia is a life-shortening neurological disorder that is usually diagnosed in childhood. It causes muscle weakness and loss of coordination in the arms and legs; impairment of vision, hearing and speech; scoliosis, diabetes; and a life-threatening heart condition. Most patients need a wheelchair full-time by their twenties. Life expectancy is reduced to early adulthood. There is currently no effective treatment or cure for Friedreich's ataxia. Although there is no treatment or cure available, Friedreich's ataxia patients and families have more and more reason for real hope. An extraordinary explosion of research findings has followed the identification of the Friedreich's ataxia gene in 1996. Since that discovery, research scientists have learned a great deal about the disorder. We now know what defects in the gene cause the disease, what protein the gene is supposed to produce, what that protein is supposed to accomplish, and why a shortage of the protein results in the cell death that leads to the disease symptoms. Investigators are increasingly optimistic that they are drawing closer to understanding more fully the causes of Friedreich's ataxia and to developing effective treatments. At the National Institutes of Health and around the world, clinical trials for Friedreich's ataxia are being conducted on drugs that hold real promise. Intensifying cooperation among organizations supporting the research and the multidisciplinary efforts of thousands of scientists and health care professionals provide powerful evidence of the growing hope and determination to conquer Friedreich's ataxia. There is a growing conviction that treatments can and will be developed for this disease and that the resulting insights will be broadly applicable across a wide range of neurological disorders. On the third Saturday of May, events will be held across our country to increase public awareness of Friedreich's ataxia and to raise funds to support the research that promises treatments for this disease. I applaud the Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA) for its contributions to these efforts and ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 18, 2002, as Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day to show our concern for all those families affected by this disorder and to express our support and encouragement for their efforts to achieve treatments and a cure.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment, and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and the others involved in crafting this compromise. I think this language recognizes the balance that has to be struck in the new dynamic between our country and Russia. Most of this amendment deals with cooperation, with transparency and technology, joint visitation, joint research and development, things that would not have been possible a dozen years ago; and the authors of the amendment deserve great credit for making those possibilities a reality. The amendment also wisely recognizes, though, that as close as our friendship with Russia is growing, there is still risk. There is still uncertainty, and there is still need for a joint process between the executive branch and those of us in the Congress to recognize and react to emergency circumstances. I hope such circumstances never arise, but if they do, this amendment strikes the proper balance. I urge its adoption by both Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a personal privilege to stand in support of the piece of legislation named in honor of a patriot, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who has served our country so very well. I am honored to support this bill in his name, and thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his contribution. America stands today as perhaps the greatest military power in global history; but as we have learned in the last 7 months, even great powers are faced with great challenges. I support this bill because I believe it affirms two of our greatest strengths, and it begins to deal with two of our greatest challenges. First of all, it affirms the strength that is the most premium strength of the American military structure, the men and women who serve their country. By raising the pay of those men and women by 4.1 percent, by supplementing their medical and other benefits considerably, although not enough, this bill is a good step in the right direction. Second, as a member of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, I am particularly pleased that we have before us today a bill that will make the greatest investment in research and development in our Nation's history. In particular, I am pleased with the 20 percent increase in the DARPA funding accounts, which I think bring out the very best of America's university sector, private sector and government sector. With respect to challenges, I believe that the new Northern Command structure that is implemented in this bill is a positive step toward meaningful homeland security. I look forward to working with the Pentagon and my fellow members of the committee in making that command structure effective in homeland security. Finally, the bill begins to grapple with the very real problem with missile defense. There are those of us who believe that missile defense is necessary and appropriate, but there are some disagreements over how to implement it. Because of the bipartisan leadership of this committee, I believe that we have a constructive approach to bridging those differences and managing this challenge. In short, I believe this is a bill that every Member of both political parties can support with pride that will help us carry forward in meeting the very great challenges our country faces today. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the students and staff of the Berlin Township School District on the occasion of their D.A.R.E. graduation, which took place on March 25th, 2002. I was honored to speak at the graduation ceremony, and I would like the names of all the D.A.R.E. graduates, officers and teachers recognized in the Congressional Record. Instructional Staff.--Cathy Conicella, Kathy Arent, Judi Knopke, Denise Conn, Karen Okulanis, Sherie Troendle, Monica King, and Fabian Brown. D.A.R.E. Officers.--Sgt. William Hill, Officer Rob Murray, and Officer Gary Sheehan. Supervisor of D.A.R.E.--Robert E. Jackson, Jr. Support Staff.--Oretta Thomas, Charlotte Cohen, Joan Mondile, and Mary Suards.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the author of the substitute and a tenacious fighter for workers across America.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our dynamic leader, the highest woman elected in the history of the House of Representatives.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I assume we have the right to close.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our former majority whip and one of the leading voices in America for minority rights.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy that affected the Enron pensioners is a story about power and conflict of interest. People with a lot of power and influence and a conflict of interest took advantage of people with very little power and influence, and those people lost just about everything they had. I wish that the legislation that my friend from Cincinnati described was on the floor today, but it is not. The legislation the majority is addressing on the floor today I think fails to solve the problems that exist in American pensions plans in three very important ways. First of all, our substitute would give employees real power to have a say in how pension plans, filled with their money, are managed. Our bill would call for these employees to have a seat, to have a say in how the plans are managed. The majority plan does not. Our bill would say that once money is in your account, it is your money. If the employer can put stock into your 401(k) plan and receive a deduction because it is treated as compensation paid to you, then it should be compensation. It should be yours to do with, whatever you please. The gentleman says that there is very little difference between the Democratic and Republican plans. I would respectfully disagree. Under the majority's plan it could be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years that an employee would have to sit there and watch the value of their stock plummet and not be able to sell the stock or do anything about it, while their bosses and superiors could drop their stock in a minute. That is wrong. Finally, there is the issue of conflict of interest. We are legalizing in this bill today, we are legitimizing in the majority's bill today, the practice of benefiting from giving people advice that benefits you more than it does them. Mr. Speaker, I would urge support of the substitute.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to tell me, if your bill became law tomorrow, if an employee had stock in a 401(k) plan that was employer-matched, how many years would the employee have to wait before they could sell the stock?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question about the facts?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the gentleman say that if the majority's bill became law tomorrow, an employee would have to wait for 5 years before he or she could divest themselves of all of the stock; is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, so before they could divest themselves of all the stock, they would have to wait for 5 years; is that correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. I do indeed.