Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I oppose this rule for the reasons outlined by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). This debate today is going to revisit a fundamental debate about values that we have had frequently in the last 40 years in the history of American education. For nearly the first 200 years of our country's history, the role of the Federal Government in public education was passive, some would even say negligent, as we sat on the sidelines and watched the process go forward. In the late 1950's, we had a choice between being passive in the face of racial segregation or being activist to try to end it, to create equality of educational opportunity. Slowly, painfully, grudgingly the courts, the Congress, the Executive Branch choose activist Federal involvement to end racial segregation. In the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting on the sidelines as poor children systematically attended poorer schools, and we collectively made an activist choice to enact the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to lend some assistance to lift those struggling schools up in whatever way we could. Also in the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting and watching as children with a disability were frozen out of the mainstream education process, who found that their needs for speech therapists or special teachers often wound up at the bottom of the local school board's priority list, behind AstroTurf for the football field, behind trips to Disney World for the board of education, and we enacted the IDEA that created in Federal law a Federal right for every child to have the highest quality education in the least restrictive learning environment. Today, I believe we are facing the same choice all over again with respect to the issue of quality of learning for every child in every setting in the primary grades. Last year a majority of us chose to take the activist position that we should encourage the reduction of class sizes by adding 100,000 teachers, qualified teachers, to this country's teaching corps. I believe the choice before us today is whether we should simply be a Federal subsidy or a national priority. Make no mistake about it. The bill that will be before us today is well intentioned, but it repeals the national commitment to reduction in class sizes. As the debate unfolds, we will be able to outline the reasons for that, but I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule on the grounds it is exclusive of good ideas and to ultimately reject the bill because I believe it steps away from that fundamental commitment to an activist Federal Government that is principled in its pursuits, but limited and carefully tailored in its means. Please oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on Rules in permitting two of my amendments. I would note for the Record it rejected a third that would have promoted the teaching of holocaust education. I regret that that was the fact.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 309, due to travel restrictions, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 310, due to travel restrictions, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member, for their cooperation in including in this en bloc amendment two amendments in which I have an interest. The first is a matter which I worked on with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) which requires systematic and thorough reporting on the efforts of the United States Government to extradite those accused of committing crimes under the jurisdiction of U.S. law against U.S. citizens. These are important provisions that I believe will help us crack down on terrorism. I also thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my legislation which will deny passports to custodial parents who have accrued a child support obligation of more than $2,500. I think it is very important that, before Americans enjoy the privilege of traveling abroad, that they make meet their obligations to their own children here at home. This is an important tool in our effort to step up child support enforcement. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation by adding this to the en bloc. I urge the adoption of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Salmon-Andrews- Saxton amendment to H.R. 2415, which requires the Administration to provide Congress with regular, detailed reports on the status of the investigations into the killers of Americans. Over 20 suspects in the deaths of twelve American citizens currently reside in the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and several of these suspects are walking free. While the United States has a right and responsibility to prosecute the terrorist killers of Americans, the Administration's effort has been incomplete. This amendment would hold the Administration responsible for following through with the pursuit of justice. We must be active in our fight against terrorism, and this bill will aid in the maintenance of U.S. vigilance against terrorism. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues, Mr. Salmon, who are tireless foes of terrorism, and I would also like to thank Mr. Gilman for offering the en bloc amendment and for including this important provision in his amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to HR 2415, which would allow the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or limit passports to non-custodial parents who owe $2,500 or more in child support. Current law sets the threshold at $5,000--an amount that does not go far enough to protect America's children. Only half of all custodial parents who are awarded child support actually receive the full amount ordered by a court. Over $5 billion is owed in delinquent child support payments each year. In a time when millions of American children live below the poverty level, the government must make a strong statement that significant delinquency in child support payments will not be tolerated. I believe we must stand up for personal responsibility and the well being of children around the nation and I thank the Chairman for offering this en bloc amendment and including this important provision.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member for his active cooperation and involvement and would point out that it is not simply one family, it is many that would be affected by the terms of this. This is a proposal that would be both prospective and retroactive, to cover the claims of any American family with that problem. I thank him for his help.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I want to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield briefly to my coauthor the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I would gratefully accept. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for her participation and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I would be delighted.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to right what I believe is a shameful abandonment of consumer protection here in the United States. In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopted a rule with respect to sleepwear, pajamas, for infants and toddlers. That rule said that if the sleepwear was not treated with flammable-resistant material, that is to say, if it was not put together in such a way that it was flame retardant, you had to put a clear label on it that explained that to the buyer of the sleepwear. Nurses, firefighters, emergency service personnel, emergency room technicians, doctors understood and supported this standard for 24 years. It resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries suffered by children and infants as a result of burns. Inexplicably, in 1996, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, by a 2 to 1 vote, changed that standard and weakened it, created a standard for disclosure and labeling on children's sleepwear that is frankly baffling. If you go into a store in this country and try to figure out which of the little pajamas are flammable and which are not, it is virtually impossible to tell because of the confusion that has been created. Last year, thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), we were successful in getting the Consumer Product Safety Commission to reconsider this decision. In June of this year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission made a decision, and I believe fervently they made the wrong decision, because they kept in place the new standard that is a weaker standard, that does not protect the children of this country. Therefore, this amendment. This amendment would prohibit the importation into this country of infant and children's sleepwear that does not have the disclosure standards that were in effect prior to the 1996 change. In other words, if you are going to import infant sleepwear or pajamas, as the vast majority of pajamas are imported, you could not import them into this country unless they had that real and strong consumer protection standard which I believe was a serious and egregious mistake to abandon.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, given that action by the other body and given the very good faith representations by the chairman and the ranking member that they are aware of the concerns that we have raised tonight and will do their best to validate those concerns and serve our interests here, I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment based upon the chairman's representation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, based on my discussions with the gentleman from Arizona, it is my understanding this is very likely a conferenceable item with the Senate.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of a job that is only half done that needs to be completed. In the last few years, this Congress addressed the problem of American citizens who win civil judgments against foreign governments for acts of terrorism and find it impossible to recover money damages because of the protections of sovereign relations. Very wisely in recent years, this Congress made modifications to title XXVIII, section 1610, to provide for ways that American citizens who were wronged, who were able to prove that wrong in a court of competent jurisdiction, then could receive a judgment and who were then able to identify assets which are carefully delineated as assets that do not touch or concern or interfere with in any way the sovereign operations of foreign nations should be able to have their judgment satisfied, should be able to be made whole for the wrongs that they have suffered. Despite the good work of the Congress, it has been unfortunate that the administration has aggressively used its waiver authority to render this law to be effectively ineffective, to render it rather meaningless for people that have been successful in recovering these judgments. The purpose of my amendment is to compel the effective use of the law that we passed a few years ago. It is to make sure that when an American is injured by a terrorist act of a foreign state, pursues his or her injuries through a court of law, wins the case and goes to satisfy that judgment, the same way we would satisfy a judgement against General Motors in the suit involving a car that explodes or the same way that we would pursue a judgment and satisfy it against a bank or any other institution in American society, that people have the opportunity to satisfy the judgment against a foreign government. The purpose of this amendment is to compel the release of assets held by foreign powers under the terms of the statute that we passed a few years ago so that Americans who have been wronged may recover as is their right. Frankly, I believe that the administration has abused its waiver authority, and the purpose of this amendment is to restore that right under the statute to its rightful place so people can recover the judgments that are rightfully theirs. This is a matter, I think, of simple fairness and justice. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, because I believe that it will right the wrongs that I have described in my statement here and it will finish the job that the Congress wisely began just a few years ago. I have discussed this with both my friend the ranking subcommittee member and the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy first to yield to my friend from Maryland who is our ranking member.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I completely agree that, if a State acts in an arbitrary fashion, they should be overruled in court. But the State should have the authority to create a level playing field and treat all casinos on that level playing field.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that if a State arbitrarily and capriciously refused to enter into a contract that individual's rights could be violated and that can be addressed in the courts.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weldon amendment. I think it is important that we understand what it is not before we talk about what it is. This amendment is in no way a rejection nor in any way does it show ignorance of the abject poverty that Native Americans have suffered throughout this country's history. I would certainly want to be very clear that those of us who will support this amendment also support a comprehensive effort to reverse the desperate straits and abject poverty that are seen on Indian reservations throughout this country. That is not the question before us tonight. Nor is this amendment a question about whether we support or oppose legalized gambling. I come from a State, New Jersey, which 23 years ago by referendum elected to legalize casino gambling in Atlantic City. There are others in this chamber that would strongly disagree with my State's judgment that legalized gambling is proper. I believe it is. I think it has brought very positive effects to New Jersey. It has brought thousands and thousands of jobs to the area of New Jersey that I represent, and I think it is a good thing. But I understand there are differences of opinion about that. But that is not the issue before us in the Weldon amendment, either. There are those who would say that the Weldon amendment is about process, whether this should be brought forward while the court is examining this. With all due respect, the litigation affects only two States. The decisions that will be rendered by the court will not necessarily bind other applications in other States. And by no means are we compelled under the doctrine of separation of powers to wait to see another branch work its will. In fact, I can argue we are better suited to work our will being a democratic, with a small ``d,'' soon now and hopefully with a large ``d'' in a few months, a democratic institution. I think the Weldon amendment is about a level playing field. It is about equality of regulation. Let me talk about my own State in particular. There are presently discussions in two counties in southern New Jersey with respect to tribes which are claiming that they have antecedent legal claims or legal rights to certain lands, and they discuss the plan to operate gambling casinos on those lands. There is significant local opposition. Now, even if they are able to overcome that opposition by the legal rights that they have under Federal statutes or under the Constitution, there is a question here of equality of regulation. Because if they want to operate a gambling casino in Atlantic City in New Jersey, they may only operate it in Atlantic City, nowhere else in the State, because we have made a judgment that we want to limit casino gambling only to that one municipality. If they want to work in a gambling casino in Atlantic City, they need a background check that is equivalent to the background check that one would need to be a cabinet officer in State government or a member of the State police. They have to have references and criminal background checks and tests for drug and alcohol. And we make very certain that individuals who work in our casino industry in New Jersey are thoroughly investigated and vetted. We prohibit employees of our gambling casinos in New Jersey from active participation in political campaigns. We prohibit the owners from making contributions to people running for the Governor's office or for the State legislature because we have a very precise set of understandings about how we want to regulate casino gambling. I believe it has been a success in New Jersey. And I think it would be completely unfair to New Jersey, where billions of dollars have been invested to build a regulated casino industry, to permit an unregulated industry to come in and compete under a different set of rules. So whether my colleagues think that tribal claims are right or wrong or whether my colleagues think that gambling is right or wrong, I would suggest that they should support the Weldon amendment because it takes the position that the same rules ought to apply to everyone.