Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, and again, long before this was an issue on the evening news or the front page of the newspaper, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) was working on this issue on his committee, on the floor. It is not a partisan issue, it is an issue that he has played a major role in educating people about. We thank the gentleman for that, and I look forward to following the gentleman's lead and to bringing legislation to this floor this spring that will help address these issues.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for being here tonight as well, Mr. Speaker. We are going to summarize. I want again say that each one of us involved in this effort is devoted to the idea of our constitutional principles, devoted to the idea of the separation of civilian and military; of the fact that in this country, the military responds to decisions by the civilian sector. Each one of us is firmly committed to the sanctity of the constitutional rights of privacy, the protection against search and seizure, the rights of legitimate people in our country to be protected from the abuse of State power. We need not choose between forfeiting our Fourth Amendment rights and defending our country. These are consistent goals. But in order to pursue these goals, we need to rethink the way we pursue them. I think that is so very, very important. Mr. Speaker, I am here late tonight, and normally I would have the greatest privilege of my life, which is tucking my 7-year-old and 5- year-old into bed, my daughters Jaqueline and Josie, and their mother did that a while ago, I hope, tonight. We are really fortunate that we put our children to bed tonight in a country that is safe and strong. It is not safe and strong everywhere, there are children who are going to sleep tonight in horribly violent neighborhoods and areas and horribly violent homes, ruined by alcohol and drug abuse and by all kinds of pernicious behavior. But this is a country that, at least in terms of pernicious behavior in the world, is safer than it has ever been, and is the safest place in the world because of those who sacrificed in the service of their country, and who do so tonight. But despite that sacrifice, there is a war going on tonight. As we put our children to sleep tonight, we have to put them to sleep with the sure understanding that there are evil and pernicious people in the world who are trying to do to us what Hitler and the Japanese could not do to us with their bombs and their armaments in World War II, could not do to us what the former Soviet Union threatened to do with us with their intercontinental ballistic missiles in the Cold War, could not do to us what foreign powers have tried to do to us throughout our history. That is to undermine and destroy the sovereignty and sanctity of our country. The way they are trying to do it is pernicious, it is lethal, but it is very quiet. I pray that the night will never come when we wake up and hear that millions of our fellow citizens have been poisoned by their drinking water because the software that is supposed to detect poison was hacked into. I pray that we never wake up and hear that thousands of people crashed to their death above airports because of an intentional violation of our air traffic control system. I pray that we never wake up and find financial chaos, and people withdrawing their money from our banking system because the money they thought was safe and the records they thought were accurate proved to be neither. I pray that we never wake up to a country where, when we try to call our police and fire and emergency management personnel by dialing 911, we cannot get through because someone has deliberately interfered with that system. This is a reality. Now, thankfully, it is a reality that our military and our intelligence community are preparing vigilantly to protect us against. It is our job to give them the tools. But there is immense preparation that still must be done on this floor in legislation with our resources to both require and incentivize our civilian sector to meet the same standards of protection as our military has met, and then to give our military and law enforcement the tools to apprehend those who do us harm. Mr. Speaker, it is my prayer that this issue will become irrelevant because we will be so well prepared, but I do not assume that that is the case.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the endorsement of my efforts by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I would simply say that my colleagues, who wished that there had been regular order to consider these in committee, I believe, should have been given that opportunity, where I know the gentleman would have given them a fair and complete hearing.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, among the people who work the hardest in our country are those who make the least. Tonight we are about to vote for a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. I appreciate the cooperation of the majority in including in this underlying legislation, legislation that I have co-authored involving the treatment of inside and outside sales employees on parity, involving the clarification of the computer professionals exemption, and involving the definition of funeral professionals. I will vote with my Democratic colleagues who would wish to reconsider those matters in committee so that they may have a fair look at them, but I support them because I think they are the right thing to do. I am going to strongly support the Democratic amendment to make the minimum wage increase 2 years. The people who will be most affected by that, Mr. Speaker, are not watching us tonight. They are cleaning offices. They are taking care of the elderly and the sick in nursing homes. They are involved in stores and retail. They are doing very difficult jobs for very long hours, or they are home resting after a long and weary day. At a time of booming prosperity, lowered unemployment, and greater opportunity, it is unconscionable that we have waited this long to raise the minimum wage for our lowest paid people. To make them wait for 3 years would be even more unconscionable. It is imperative that we pass the Democratic amendment to make the minimum wage 2 years instead of 3 and pass the underlying bill as well. It is a long overdue and a deserved raise for the hard-working people of America.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent piece of legislation that I am privileged to support. I think very rarely are we going to get more return on our investment than we are from this piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for bringing it forward. The purpose of my amendment is to be sure that important research and development funds are invested in an event that I hope will never happen, and in an event I hope will happen. The event to prevent something that I hope will never happen is the importance of providing information security, making sure what we refer to in the amendment as ``counter-initiatives'' are thwarted. The news media has been rife with reports in the last few days of what has been called cyber-vandalism, attacks on some well-known commercial Web sites throughout this country. It is very important that we stay more than one step ahead of those who would do us harm through cyber-terrorism or cyber-vandalism. As my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), said in the general debate on this bill, those of us on the Committee on Armed Services are making a concerted effort in conjunction with the administration this year to be sure that our military cyber-defenses are prepared and ready. I believe that this legislation, aided by this amendment, will be sure that we take the maximum steps to prevent this kind of cyber- terrorism in our civilian sector. The event that I hope will happen will be the extension of high-tech medical technology, excellent medical technology to people all over the country and all over the world, through the initiative of telemedicine. My amendment directs and encourages that telemedicine research be one of the major priorities under this bill as well. I am very privileged to have had the cooperation of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and his staff and that of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and I urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the cause of freedom, in strong support of a strong foreign policy for our country, in support of this rule and support of this bill. I congratulate and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and his Democratic colleagues for bringing this important legislation forward. I believe we have an emerging consensus about U.S. foreign policy that has two points. The first point is that we should use our military and diplomatic might to challenge those who would use brute force over the rule of law, which is why we successfully interceded in Kosovo, which is why we have been willing to exert that force in Bosnia, which is why we protected the people of the Persian Gulf against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. It is a wise and judicious use of the global power that we have accumulated through the courage and conviction of our military leaders, our men and women in uniform, and our diplomats. The second aspect of our foreign policy consensus is that we will reward and incentivise democracy, respect for human rights and the free flow of goods and services in the economic realm. I think that is a very wise and prudent course for us to follow. Now, we have our disagreements as to how to apply those principles, and we will have those disagreements as the year goes on, but I believe that there is no piece of legislation more representative of that principle than the one that will be before us very shortly. Mr. Speaker, the freedom-loving people of Taiwan deserve not only our commendation, but our support. The economic miracle over which they preside every day, the powerhouse of freedom and dynamism that their efforts represent, should receive our continuing support. But, more importantly, when they are menaced by the threat of being overwhelmed military, when there are nuclear weapons exercises, when there are hostile words spoken by the People's Republic of China, I believe we have a responsibility to act forcefully. Acting forcefully means being prepared militarily. The essence of the bill that is before us is to enhance the preparedness of freedom-loving people in Taiwan and to support that preparedness here in the United States. Military training, the sharing of technology, the reaffirmation of principles that were enacted in the 1979 law are all very, very appropriate here. The relationship between two countries is a complex phenomena. The relationship between us and the People's Republic of China is a relationship that will receive great attention on this floor this year. But I believe that one aspect of that relationship that needs to be reaffirmed with great clarity, that I would ask us to affirm with great clarity here today, is that freedom is not negotiable where we stand, and we do stand with the freedom-loving people of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support and passage of this rule and this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a miracle or a coincidence, but for over 100 days after the House passed the bill there was no meeting scheduled of the conferees. Then last night we filed this motion calling for a meeting of the conferees, and we hear there is a meeting going to be scheduled. It sounds to me like a trip to Lourdes took place and a miracle occurred, and we accept the miracle very happily. I have no doubt that there are people in good faith on both sides that want to pass a real accountability bill for managed care. But I worry that we might be like the fans of the Tennessee Titans, like my friend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who believes that if they had time for just one more play the other night, they would have tied the game and gone on to win the Super Bowl. I do not want to be standing here in September or October and saying, if we just had one more week, just a little more time, we could have done what the huge majority of Americans want us to do. Let us get to work right now. Let us have the conference meet, and let us pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on H. Con. Res. 244, due to travel restrictions, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank South Jersey's emergency response personnel who keep our families safe during the holiday season as well as throughout the year. Communities from across South Jersey nominated heroic members of local EMS, Fire and Emergency crews who deserve special recognition for their bravery. I would like to personally express my gratitude to the 20 men and women who put their lives in jeopardy to ensure the safety of ours. Thank you to 20 of South Jersey's bravest men and women. Javier Matos, Camden City Fire Department Squadron #6 Mary Catalfamo, Chesterfield Township Emergency Management Squadron #269 Lorraine Taraskas, Atco Township Emergency Management Squadron #23 James Newman, Deptford Township Emergency Service Squadron 11-9 Barry Petty, Edgewater Park Township Emergency Service Squadron William Mason, Newfield Borough Emergency Service Squadron Donald Ley, Sr., Woodbury Heights Emergency Service Squadron 15-9 and Fire Company 15-01 Clifford Leary, Maple Shade Township Independent Fire Company #1 Robert Harper, Jr., Lawnside Fire Company and Emergency Management Squadron Albert Freck, Clayton Borough Fire Company Station #41-1 Irene Rowe, Mantua Township Community Ambulance Squadron Bob Barney, Chesilhurst Fire Company Robert Davis, Monroe Township Ambulance Association Squadron #29-4 Chief James J. Trautner, National Park Fire Station, #6-8 Chief Brian Cunningham, Hi-Nella Fire Company #1, Station #691 Captain James Hillman, Camden City Fire Department Ladder #2 Frank Sandrock, Camden City Fire Department Rescue #1 Warren Everett, Camden City Fire Department Rescue #1 Al Adomanis, Chews Landing Fire Company #82 Jim Price, Chews Landing Fire Company #82

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Eric Lewis from Camden, New Jersey on winning the prestigious Thelonious Monk International Jazz Piano Competition. As a Camden native, Mr. Lewis has brought great pride both to the city of Camden and to the entire state of New Jersey, as well as to musicians all over world. In addition to his exceptional musical talents, Mr. Lewis obviously shares a commitment to his community. Mr. Lewis has pledged to donate ten percent of his winnings to his local church. This unselfishness and generosity is a testament to Mr. Lewis' character and an example to all. I have confidence that he will use his exceptional talent to give back to his neighbors and community. Once again, hats off to Mr. Eric Lewis on this outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill. I am pleased to note that legislation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and I authored, which frees up funding for moving from welfare to work, is in this bill. I thank the majority for their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I support the Mink amendment. If I could have one wish for every child in America, it would be that there is at least one committed adult who gets out of bed every morning and makes that child's welfare the most important priority in his or her life. I think it is important that we recognize that males or females, blood relatives or nonblood relatives, can serve that function. Anything that narrows those opportunities by gender, by blood relation versus nonblood relation, I think narrows the chance that children are going to get that kind of care. Mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, friends who are willing to take responsibility as guardians, all of these people are necessary for children to be nurtured. Mr. Chairman, I support the Mink amendment because I believe it does not tie the funding streams to the gender of the adult, but it ties the funding streams to the needs of the child and the existence of an adult who is willing to help. I urge support of the Mink amendment as well as support for the underlying bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a spectacular rendition of the timeless holiday tale, ``Twas the Night Before Christmas.'' This holiday season I encourage all of us to remember the men and women of our country's armed services who work twenty-four- hours a day, seven days a week to guarantee our safety and the safety of our beloved children. May they know how much we appreciate their sacrifices for freedom. 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (By an American Marine stationed in Okinawa, Japan) 'Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone, in a one bedroom house made of plaster and stone. I had come down the chimney with presents to give, and to see just who in this home did live. I looked all about, a strange sight I did see, no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree. No stocking by mantel, just boots filled with sand, on the wall hung pictures of far distant lands. With medals and badges, awards of all kinds, a sober thought came through my mind. For this house was different, it was dark and dreary, I found the home of a soldier, one I could see clearly. The soldier lay sleeping, slient, alone, curled up on the floor in this one bedroom home. The face was so gentle, the room in such disorder, now how I pictured a United States soldier. Was this the hero of whom I'd just read? Curled up on a poncho, the floor for a bed? I realized the families that I saw this night, owed their lives to these soldiers who were willing to fight. Soon round the world, the children would play, and grown-ups would celebrate a bight Christmas day. They all enjoyed freedom each month of the year, because of the soldiers, like the one lying here. I couldn't help wonder how many lay alone, on a cold Christmas eve in a land far from home. The very thought brought a tear to my eye, I dropped to my knees and started to cry. The soldier awakened and I heard a rough voice, ``Santa don't cry, this life is my choice; I fight for freedom, I don't ask for more, my life is my god, my country, my Corps.'' The soldier rolled over and drifted to sleep, I couldn't control it, I continued to weep. I kept watch for hours, so silent and still and we both shivered from the cold night's chill. I didn't want to leave on that cold, dark, night, this guardian of honor so willing to fight. Then the soldier rolled over, with a voice soft and pure, whispered, ``carry on Santa,'' it's Christmas Day, all is secure.'' One look at my watch, and I knew he was right ``Merry Christmas my friend, and to all a good night.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, in a couple of days I have one of the most important meetings on my schedule for the next couple of months. It is with a person named Ms. Jordano. Ms. Jordano is my daughter Jacqueline's first grade teacher. My wife and I are going to the parent-teacher conference. When we go to the patient-teacher conference, we are going to listen to what she has to say, because we respect her ability after years in the classroom to know about how to teach a first grader how to read. Today I find myself in a different role. We are giving unsolicited advice to the reading teachers of America as to how they ought to teach reading. We certainly are entitled to our own opinion, but I think to offer that opinion as an institution is an abrogation and overstepping of our authority as the Congress of the United States. I would consider voting for this resolution on one condition. If we are going to take responsibility for determining reading curriculum for the teachers of America, let us give the teachers of America responsibility for determining other questions about education. Let us let them decide whether to fully fund the IDEA. Let us let them decide whether to put 100,000 qualified teachers in classrooms across America. Let us let them decide whether to fix the crumbling school buildings that exist in communities across America, and build new schools. Let us let the teachers of America decide whether we should make a true national commitment to pre-kindergarten education, which we do not presently have. Let us let them decide whether we should increase Title I funding, as many of us advocated on this floor just a few weeks ago. I suspect if we yielded that authority to them, that they would vote in favor of all those things for education. I suspect the majority will not want to do that. For that reason, we should get back in our proper role, defeat this superfluous amendment, and pass real education legislation to improve America's schools.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. Mr. Speaker, if Members have ever lived in a neighborhood and they want to build a shopping center in the neighborhood, Members would understand why we are here making this argument today. If we have 100 of our neighbors together and two-thirds of them do not want the shopping center, and then we find out there is going to be a meeting at the town hall about whether to build the shopping center, and you have to pick seven of your neighbors to go represent your position, and someone says, let us take five people who want the shopping center and two who do not and send them to the meeting, I think most of us would say that that is ridiculous, the delegation we send from our neighborhood ought to reflect the sentiment of the neighborhood. On October 7, 275 of us voted strongly in favor of holding managed care plans accountable, over 60 percent of the Members of the House. We are going to go negotiate with the other body over a bill that does not have similar accountability provisions. As one of the prior speakers said, it should be self-evident what the House's position is, and it is. Over 60 percent of us believe that there ought to be accountability provisions, consistent with Norwood-Dingell. But we have every reason to believe that the delegation we are sending from our neighborhood is not going to reflect that point of view. It should reflect that point of view. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) should be one of those conferees, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) should be one of those conferees. But it appears that will not be the case. The reason we are on the floor today is to tell our negotiating committee to keep in mind the sentiment of this neighborhood. We supported this legislation because the American people want accountability for health insurance companies. We are supporting this motion because the Members of this House want accountability from our conference negotiators. Support the motion.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Payne amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and thank him for leading the fight to keep this from being rolled all the way back to 25 percent, and I admire his leadership on that; but I think it is very important we keep this as 50 percent. I think it is very important that we say that a program that is designed to reach out and help economically disadvantaged children will stay that way, and I think if fewer than half the children in a school fit that economically disadvantaged category, but we permit the expenditure of Title I funds anyway in whole school reform, that we are marching toward Federal education revenue sharing, which is really not something I think we want to do. The underlying purpose of this act is to use targeted resources for children who most need it, for children who have the least out of State and local resources. I think that the Payne amendment is crucial toward establishing that goal; I enthusiastically support it.

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania's bipartisan cooperation. I believe this is a good step forward. I would yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his help.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for his indulgence. I would be open to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's suggestion of a second-degree amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that under whole school reform, pre-K programs may be offered on a whole school basis for children. Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodling to Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. A few minutes ago, the very articulate gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) challenged us rhetorically to cite the basis in the Constitution for the Federal education laws which are block granted and, I believe, functionally repealed by this bill. I would suggest to my colleagues that there is indeed an important constitutional basis for these Federal education laws. It is the relevant part of the 14th Amendment that says that no State shall deny any person life, liberty, or property without equal protection of the law. The theory of giving local decision-makers more flexibility to do the right thing is alluringly attractive. We all know and trust and admire certain local decision-makers in our districts, and we know that they are capable of making excellent judgments, as they do every day. But that alluring theory runs head-long into the harsh reality of history in this country, and the history of this country is this: The children living in poor neighborhoods have historically had much lower levels of educational opportunity. They have gone to school in facilities that are very often segregated by race, that are very often inferior in their physical plan, that have larger class size, very often that have less qualified teachers, less access to technology, and fewer of the positive attributes that successful schools have. Thirty-five years ago this Congress made a judgment to do something about that, to bring more equal protection to those children who did not have and do not have a lot of clout in the State legislatures, who do not have and did not have the ability to make immense campaign contributions to people running for governor or the State legislature, and we made a judgment that says that we would put a modest amount of money into reading teachers, for tutors, for facilities in the Title I, Part A program. We made a judgment that some of those children should have the chance to get an even start by going to school before kindergarten. And we looked at children that were the sons and daughters of migrant workers and understood that when they went to one school in September and another one in October and another one in December and another one in February that they have a special educational problem. Later on we made a judgment that putting police officers and teachers in front of third- and fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in the safe and drug- free school program made sense. This is not an imposition of Federal will upon local decision-makers. This is the proper establishment of a national policy that says that all children have the equal protection of the law that the 14th Amendment guarantees them. Frankly, it is an effort that falls far short of what we really ought to do. Because we really ought to have a viable school construction program that takes children out of trailers and hallways and puts them in a good facility. We should enact the President's initiative to put 100,000 qualified teachers in classrooms in every community in America. We should, as many Republican Members of this House have said, have met our obligation and fully fund the IDEA. What we did today with over 300 votes was reaffirm our historical commitment to assuring equal protection under the law for all of our children. What this proposal does is to abandon that commitment. That commitment is not a Democratic or Republican commitment. It is not liberal or conservative. It is not regional. It is part of the essential sense of who we are and what we are as a people. Let us not abandon our historical commitment to the children of this country. Let us reject this legislation. Let us reaffirm what over 300 of us did earlier today and stand by our commitment for equal protection under the law.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise as a graduate of and a believer in American public schools to support this legislation. I think there is a broad consensus among the Members of this Congress that a very top priority is that we improve our public schools. Our employers are asking for it, our parents are asking for it, our students and our teachers are asking for it, and I believe this legislation takes an important step in that direction. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their excellent bipartisan cooperation in bringing this legislation to the floor. I think we should do more, and I hope that before we adjourn for the year, we find it in our agenda to enact the President's class size reduction initiative and put 100,000 qualified teachers in America's classrooms. I hope that we enact for the first time a meaningful Federal program to assist in the construction and reconstruction of our crumbling schools. But I think this legislation is an important step in the right direction. It is important for what it does, by placing tutors and learning materials and new opportunities in the hands of the children who are least likely to have those opportunities without this law. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) said, it is important for what it does not do, because it does not take us down the false promise path of vouchers and the privatization of our public schools. I commend the leaders of our committee for reaching that delicate balance. I would also like to thank the leaders of the committee for including in this bill two initiatives which I have sponsored and supported, one which attempts to stem the tide of school violence that we have seen in this country by the enactment of peer mediation programs that help young people work out their differences among themselves. I also thank the leadership for their inclusion of an effort that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and I have worked on to promote the education of young people in entrepreneurship, so that young people may learn ways that they may build businesses into successes to pay taxes to support our public school system. I will be offering an amendment later today which attempts to give local educators a new tool to expand the benefits of the ESEA to preschoolers, to 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds who are not yet in kindergarten. There is no rule that says that we should wait until our children are 5 years old before they start to learn. They sure do not wait until they are 5 years old. I believe that my amendment will liberate the resources of this bill to help local school decisionmakers make prekindergarten programs a more viable success in the future. I would urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues to step forward, show the country that we can act together for the benefit of America's education and pass this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in very, very strong support of the Mink- Woolsey-Sanchez-Morella amendment. Gender discrimination has been institutionalized in American life. It is important that we try to uproot that discrimination from its roots, and what better place to start than the classrooms of America. I am particularly gratified that the authors of this amendment have included in it language that I suggested with respect to a special education program for gender equity that involves the birthplace of women's rights, in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, the Alice Paul Foundation. Alice Paul understood when she wrote the equal rights amendment, which we will yet ratify, and she understood when she led the fight for women's suffrage that discrimination on the basis of gender is rooted in American life. My grandmother was born at a time when women did not have the right to vote. My wife was born at a time when the smartest girl in the class, which she was, was told that she could be a teacher but not the principal, that she could be a nurse but not a doctor. Now, nursing and teaching are honorable professions and if a young woman or young man chooses that profession, we should encourage them to do so, but we should educate them that if they choose to be the doctor or the principal or the President, that they have every right to do so. It is important that young women learn that from the word go. My daughters are 6 and 4. They are being educated in their homes to understand that they can go as far as their abilities will take them. But I understand that in the institutions that they will encounter, they will not necessarily receive the same message. They will be paid 69 cents for every dollar that their brothers earn. They will be told that there are still glass ceilings that apply to them but not their boy cousins or brothers. This must change. The first and best place to change it is in America's classrooms, and the best way to change it today is for us to strongly support the retention of this program. I applaud the authors for introducing it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on roll call votes numbered 500 and 501, I was unavoidably detained because I was tending to family medical concerns, and I was unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both of these votes.