Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: Amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of House Report 107-289 offered by Mr. Andrews: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The liability provisions in this substitute do not impose new liability upon employers. What they do is impose new responsibility and liability upon advisors who breach their fiduciary duty. And the employer-protection provisions in this substitute are essentially identical to those in the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. People need investment advice, that is true, but it is also true they are getting it from the independent sources that are out there in increasingly high numbers. Just 2 years ago only 17 percent of employers were offering investment advice options; today it is up to 31 percent, nearly double, and it is growing. When someone goes for investment advice and the advice is being given by a conflicted advisor, that conflict ought to be disclosed at the time of the decision. That does not happen under this bill. The advisor ought to be completely qualified and accountable. That does not happen under this bill. The person receiving the advice ought to know that he or she has other independent choices. That does not happen under this bill. And if the advice that is given is bad and hurts the investor, there ought to be adequate remedies to make that investor whole. That does not happen under this bill. For all of these reasons, and the others stated by my colleagues, I would urge a vote against the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a real authority on human resources and employee relations. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a member of our committee.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), my friend, just spoke about his representation that one needs to be a trust officer of a bank. I would respectfully disagree. Page 10 of the bill, line 12, indicates an employee, agent, or registered representative of a person describing an institution who satisfies the requirements is qualified. So if there are no local applicable banking or securities laws; a mere employee of a bank or an insurance company is qualified to give the advice. So the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) was correct in our description. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a committee member.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time the Committee on Education and the Workforce minority has remaining.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. I would simply say that it is of very little comfort to a pensioner who has just lost everything in their 401(k) that the Department of Labor may someday institute some civil proceeding. People need to get their money back, and under this bill they do not. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of our full committee.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill; and later in the debate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and myself will offer a substitute which we believe is a more positive alternative. I want to proceed by agreeing with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the subcommittee chairman, that there is a serious problem that requires a remedy, and that problem is the fact that there are millions of Americans, a majority of Americans, who now hold interest in the equity markets, in the stock markets, and that many of these Americans do not receive adequate advice as to the options and strategies they should follow in investing their money. There are too many people who get their investment advice from a neighbor, over the back yard fence, or through hearsay at an office gathering, or what have you, and we all agree that that is a situation that we want to change. I also want to say that Chairman Boehner and Chairman Johnson have been open and fair throughout this process, and I hope that we are able to continue working together as the legislation advances to the other body so that we may reach a mutually agreeable solution, and I thank the chairman for his openness and fairness throughout this process. We think that this bill is the wrong way to give investment advice because we think it is flawed in four essential ways: First of all, it is important to understand that this bill will make it possible for a person to receive investment advice about their pension assets, perhaps along with their home the most important assets a person owns, from someone who has a vested interest in that decision, in addition to or other than the interest of the pension. In other words, an employee of an insurance company or a bank or a financial services company can give advice to a pensioner that would result in that pensioner putting valuable pension assets into a fund where the advisor would do better or where the advisor would profit from the result of that decision. That is an important conflict of interest that we think is a very serious and troubling one. The bill does not properly reconcile that conflict of interest in four important ways: First of all, its disclosure provisions do not adequately or contemporaneously disclose to the investor what the risks are. If there is to be such advice given, we believe, Mr. Speaker, that the person receiving the advice should know with great clarity exactly what the nature of a potential conflict is at the time he or she is making the decision. It is not good enough to receive that disclosure months or even years before one makes the decision. It is not good enough that that disclosure be confusing, presented in the verbiage of financial planning professionals and not the commonsense language most of us would be able to understand. Because the bill does not provide for adequate disclosure of potential or real conflicts by investment advisers, it is flawed. Secondly, the bill does not provide for adequate qualifications of the investment advisers. If someone is going to be giving investment advice to American pensioners and American workers, that someone ought to be trained and qualified and accountable. There is a serious loophole in the underlying bill with respect to that training and qualification. Where there are cases where employees of large banks, large insurance companies, large financial services companies do not have that kind of adequate training, as we read the bill, they would still be able to give such advice. We believe that only people who are duly licensed and trained and qualified should be giving such advice. The third major flaw of this bill is it does not take adequate measures to make the investor aware that there are alternatives, in many cases better alternatives to receiving advice other than receiving advice from a conflicted advisor; that there is someone else to whom the pensioner could turn, someone else to whom the employee could turn who has no stake in the outcome of his or her decision, who has no conflict of interest. We believe that if conflicted advice is to be given at all, it should only be given where there is a clear disclosure of the available option of an independent advisor for that worker or retiree, so that the person receiving the advice knows that there is someone to whom she or he can turn who has no stake whatsoever in the outcome to have the decision other than the best interests of the investor. Finally, this bill is significantly flawed because it does not provide adequate remedies if someone receives advice that is wrong and that is a breach of fiduciary duties. The bill recognizes the fact that the fiduciary relationship between the adviser and the investor continues under this bill. But what happens if the advisor breaches that duty. Well, the bill would permit present law to continue, and present law permits the recovery of the lost investment; it does not permit the recovery of damages for the consequences of that lost investment. As a practical reality that means that a person who gets bad advice that is a breach of the fiduciary duty of the advisor will never get his or her claim to a court of competent jurisdiction and will never be made whole again. Once the horse has left the barn, it cannot be returned because the remedies are not sufficient under this bill. Mr. Speaker, for these four reasons we think that this bill is flawed. That is why our position in opposing this is supported by the voice of working people in this country, the AFL-CIO and the American Association of Retired Persons. Finally, I would recognize that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) made reference to Ms. Shepard who is the human resources administrator at Mohawk Industries. I would like to read for the Record some remarks she made in the October 21, 2001 issue of the New York Times. At the appropriate time I will submit the entire article for inclusion in the Record. ``Betty Shepard, human resources administrator at Mohawk Industries, said it had not offered advice because rules and liability were unclear,'' for the employer. That is my insertion. `` `We want to give employees a way to get easy access to reliable investment advice within the confines of the law.' Ms. Shepard, who testified before Congress last summer in favor of the bill said she `would prefer hiring an impartial advisor to assist employees.' '' Well, so would we. We believe that the four reasons that I have outlined today that are weaknesses in this bill justify a vote against the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

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.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the creation of a new organization very much like the NATO organization to help us in the global fight against terrorism. NATO was the most successful organization in the modern history of the world for creating a cooperative defense structure. In fewer than 50 years, its principal enemy imploded without NATO ever having to declare war or engage in serious hostilities against that enemy, the former Soviet Union. Why did NATO succeed? I believe it succeeded for three reasons. First, there was a clear and obvious threat and enemy, the former Soviet Union. Second, defense against that threat was larger than any one country could handle. It required cooperation among Nations. Third, it was much more intelligent and efficient to have that cooperation so that costs, both economic and military, could be shared. The synergy that was created by the integration of the NATO countries permitted those NATO countries to forcefully make the argument to the rest of the world that the way of life that is based upon the rule of law, tolerance and freedom and the free enterprise system was far superior to the world view that NATO was opposed to. Today we are faced with a very different threat. It is the threat of an international network of terrorists who seek to destroy anyone who does not share their view of life and the world. That threat is not manageable by any one country. Even this one, as mighty and as powerful as it is, cannot defeat the threat of terrorism by itself. President Bush and the members of his administration have done an exemplary job since September 11, 2001, in knitting together an alliance of civilized nations and peoples everywhere in revulsion against the acts of September 11. That same kind of integration is necessary on a permanent basis to win the war against terrorism. Finally, the resources that are needed, the money, the intelligence, the arms, are much more powerful if they are multiplied and shared among nations. I believe that the first place to start with the creation of this new NATO is on the question of the development and deployment of national missile defense. As our President this week meets with President Putin of Russia, they have made great progress toward agreement between our two countries on the necessity of developing and deploying a weapon shield that would prevent innocent people from being attacked by an accidental or rogue strike of an intercontinental ballistic missile. I believe that shield must be constructed by far more than just two nations. I believe that to succeed against the new common enemy of the terrorist network, against the likelihood or certainty that that network will achieve the ability to deploy and use strategic weapons, that we need the creation of a new type of structure that follows and tracks NATO. We need a NATO for the 21st century. It should not be bound by geography the way the NATO that followed World War II was. I believe it should not even be bound by ideology as the first NATO was. It needs to be bound together by the common interest in preparing for the likelihood, some would say the certainty, of attack by terrorists with strategic weapons. Our President is taking an important first step in that regard in his meetings with the Russian president this week. I and the members of the other body wish him well. We need to build on the success that I believe will come this week. In the defense authorization bill which passed this Chamber and is now in conference with the other body, there is report language that was inserted at my request that encourages the administration to build on an existing regional missile defense system called the MEADS system. Presently, Italy and Spain have joined with the United States in pursuing this system. I believe that this instruction to the Department of Defense and our administration can lay the foundation for the development of a new NATO for the 21st century that will reach across nations, across oceans, across ideological divides to build and deploy a common defense shield against the use of the worst weapons of destruction by the worst destroyers that we have seen in the modern history of the world. On September 11, 2000, people would have said it was alarmist to worry about the construction of such a shield. On August 11, 2001, others still would have said that. But no one can say after the events of September 11, 2001, that any hideous evil is beyond the reach and imagination of people who are sworn to destroy us in these terrorist networks. We can hope that they do not get access to the weapons of mass destruction, or assume that they will. I believe we must prevent them from getting them with every fiber of our strength, but we also must assume that there will be failures and they will get access to these weapons. The only way to sustain a defense against this likelihood or probability is the creation of a defensive shield. I believe the only way to successfully create that shield is to follow the lessons of our predecessors when they built NATO: recognize the common threat of terrorism, recognize the futility of any one nation dealing with that common threat by itself, recognize the advantages of knitting together the resources of many nations to build that shield. When we do, the prosperity that will result, the humanity that will result, the respect among nations that will result, will provide the best evidence for those who are not under the shield that they should change their own governments, change their own countries and come within the protective shield of that umbrella. Mr. Speaker, it is not a partisan issue. It is not an issue between the legislative and executive branch. It is a matter of necessity. It is our time to learn the lessons which followed World War II, to build on the successes of World War II and build a permanent structure for peace, not only on the land but in the skies and in the heavens. I believe that the proper way to do that is by the construction and maintenance of a NATO-type structure that will defend us in space and in the air against the threat of errant or rogue or terrorist intercontinental ballistic missiles. I would urge Congress to follow that course.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my friend and neighbor, for yielding the time to me; and I am proud to rise as a co-sponsor and supporter of the legislation. Let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) without whom this legislation would not have gotten on the floor; his legislative skill and his partnership in this effort are truly appreciated, and I thank the gentleman for his work. I also want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was one of the earliest and most significant co-sponsors of this bill, and I know that the small business people in his district and across the country appreciate his leadership on this. Let me also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the majority and minority staffs of the committee for their excellent cooperation in bringing us to this point. I also want to thank my friend and constituent Don Kensey, Madam Speaker, who is with us today who first brought this to my attention several years ago in my office in New Jersey. This legislation is good for the traveling passenger. It is good for the small business person, and I believe it is good for highway safety. It is good for the traveling passenger because it gives him or her more choices as to how to get to where they want to go, and with transportation being something in a state of confusion today or anxiety, having one more safe and secure choice to go from south Jersey, where I live, to New York City or to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back or from Cleveland to Pittsburgh to watch the Steelers, I will not say defeat the Browns since the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) still has control of the time, take on the Browns, these are choices people ought to be able to make; and because of this legislation, they will be able to. Second, there are, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said, thousands of small business people around this country who are profoundly affected by this legislation. These are men and women who are living from paycheck to paycheck, who are scraping to get their businesses going; and by giving them the chance to compete on a fair and level playing field, we are enhancing their ability to employ their employees and to move their passengers and customers around the country. Finally, I think the legislation is very much needed for highway safety purposes because face it, very often, these vehicles are employed by people who are out for that great, good time in celebration of a wedding, celebration of a graduation, a special occasion in the family where people want to relax and enjoy themselves and should not be behind the wheel. Madam Speaker, when they employ one of these vehicles, it permits them to travel safely, to make the highways safer for each one of us. Following up on something the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said, this industry, because of its close relationship to air travel, is in a state of great distress. From the leadership of gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) on the Committee on Small Business, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and others on the majority side are trying to find ways through the Small Business Administration and other vehicles, other agencies, to try to help this segment of the air travel industry through a grave and difficult crisis. Madam Speaker, I hope that today is simply the first step in a broad and comprehensive effort to help this integral and important part of our air transportation system stay in business and stay intact. Madam Speaker, I extend my thanks for the cooperation of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the legislation, give it their affirmative vote and pass this legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the outstanding legislative product they have put before this body, and to strongly endorse this motion to instruct. One of the areas that I am most especially pleased to see is the substantial increase in special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, the IDEA. In the fiscal year that ended September 30, we committed $6.3 billion to help educate students with these needs. In the House bill, that number now exceeds $7.7 billion, an increase of well over 20 percent. This is a double victory. It provides much higher quality education for children with special needs, and it frees up resources in local school districts around the country to do many other things: to help reduce class sizes for children who are not in special education, to free up money for school construction, for teacher quality, or for tax relief. We need to do more of this, and we need to do it for the reasons my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, just cited: State budgets around this Nation are feeling and will profoundly feel the effects of the economic slowdown. That will mean substantially lower State resources for education. Now more than ever it is important for us to step in and help fill that void. This legislation does so. As we proceed with the House-Senate conference on the education reform bill, we strongly support making major quality upgrades and reforms in education, but we only want to do so if the resources are there to pay for the needs of children who are identified as having trouble. This bill is an example of what we need to do on a permanent and ongoing basis to make sure that once we have identified children with problems, we give them the tools and the teachers with whom they can overcome those problems. For the bipartisan leadership on this bill, I extend my thanks and appreciation, urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I believe it properly reconciles two forces in our new world that need to be reconciled. The first is that people are very busy living their lives, working their full-time jobs, dealing with the needs of their children, dealing with their household needs. We are all stressed and pressured and do not have a lot of time. The second reality is almost everyone in almost every job needs to continuously upgrade his or her skills and keep learning. So how does one keep learning? How does one go back to school if one has responsibility for children and work and household stresses. Madam Speaker, one of the ways that more and more people are doing this is by learning online, by taking advantage of this virtual university that is being created around America and around the world. Unfortunately, the financial aid rules that confront people today unduly restrict many people from participating in this virtual university. The purpose of this bill is to open the door of the virtual university for those who must depend upon financial aid. I have listened very intently to the concerns of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and I must say no Member of this House is more responsible for the success that we have had in greatly reducing defaults than the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). When I arrived in this House 11 years ago, we were spending $5.3 billion a year on unpaid defaulted student loans. The gentlewoman from Hawaii was one of the leaders in 1992 and then again in 1998 in enacting some major changes in the law, and the result of those changes has been that the cost of student defaults is now below $1 billion per year. I applaud her for her leadership in that area. I come to a different conclusion about the impact of these changes, however. I think that the changes that are made are inconsequential to dealing with the default problem. I think the remaining provisions that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) made reference to will continue us on the track of minimizing or even eliminating defaults. And I think the value of opening the doors to America's virtual university makes it worthwhile to support this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I also wish to express my thanks to Chairman Bonilla and his staff for helping us.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for their excellent work on this piece of legislation. This amendment deals with a very serious problem in Gloucester County, New Jersey, in my district which could lead to severe flooding, loss of life and property damage for hundreds of families who live adjacent to the Repaupo Creek. The tide gate, which is supposed to control flooding on that creek, is in severely dilapidated condition. The excellent work of the Agriculture Department in the State of New Jersey has thus far indicated a willingness of that Department to address and solve this problem. In order to make it explicit that the Department of Agriculture has the authority to provide assistance for the planning and implementation of the Repaupo Creek tide gate and dike restoration project, I have introduced this amendment. Again, I believe it is an excellent preventative measure.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified by striking subparagraph B.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, in a colloquy. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to discuss an issue that takes on even more significance in light of the attacks on September 11, and that is computer cyber-security. I had proposed an amendment to provide $2 million to the Secretary of Defense in order to assist the Department of Defense in ensuring that computers and computer-related products that the Department purchases from the commercial sector meet the highest level of national security and information security requirements. Unfortunately, my amendment was not ruled in order. This is a very important topic to me, and I hope to have the chairman's support as I continue to discuss and promote the need for information assurance within the Department of Defense.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if a military base is deciding whether or not to contract out car washing at that military base, this amendment says before they can make that decision to take those jobs away from public employees, they must give those public employees a fair chance to compete for and win the contract. Mr. Speaker, the record shows that privatization is often a failure. It means lower quality at a higher price. It means taking jobs away from people with benefits and giving them to people without benefits for private profit. But this motion is not anti-privatization. It is pro-competition and it is pro-taxpayer and it is pro-Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a vote in favor of the motion to recommit.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, for yielding time to me. At a time of great uncertainty in our country, this bill provides strong assurances to the American people. When our Commander in Chief calls our men and women in service to action, they will be ready because of this legislation and other bills from this committee that have gone before it. When the planes need to fly and the ships need to be deployed and the Marines need to land and the soldiers need to do their work, they will be ready because of the diligence and vigilance of Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle. This bill does a lot to make them even more ready. It raises their pay, and makes significant steps towards improving the conditions in which their families live. It provides for funding for the ships, the planes, the weapons that they will need to do their job. As a member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, I am particularly pleased that under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), with the active leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), we were able to increase by $6 billion, from $41 billion in the present fiscal year to $47 billion in the forthcoming fiscal year, the resources for research and development. If Members want to make the airports safer, these research and development projects will make it so. If Members are looking for ways to defend America's civilian infrastructure from attacks that we dread and anticipate, these projects are the way to make it so. Our enemies should note duly this afternoon, we are united on this bill. We will go forward together, and when our Commander in Chief calls, our troops will be ready as a result of this legislation. I urge its passage by the House.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, tonight with the passage of this resolution, it is time that we move from words to deeds. We must identify and destroy all those who perpetrated the horror on our country on Tuesday. We must then move swiftly to cut off their financing network, their infrastructure network, and all those who would aid and abet and support them. Then we must embark on the long struggle of making the nations choose between obedience to terrorism or subscription to the rule of law and international cooperation. There has been much eloquence in this Chamber in recent days from all sides, and I appreciate it. But the American people will not be satisfied with our eloquence. They want us to stand with our Armed Forces, stand with our allies around the world, and swiftly, swiftly settle the debt owed to us by those who brought harm upon this country on Tuesday.