Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Broadway Theatre of Pitman, New Jersey and its production of ``All Shook Up'' for the honors it received at the New Jersey Association of Community Theater's Perry Awards. Opened in May 1926, the Broadway originally operated as a fully equipped movie and vaudeville theatre. Thanks to a strong community effort, the Broadway Theatre of Pitman reopened its doors in 2007. The theatre's owner Peter Stack has worked with the Greater Pitman Chamber of Commerce to preserve the theatre's history. Each year the Broadway Theatre presents six main stage productions including comedies, dramas, and musicals. This historic 900-seat house is unique, combining the allure of the old-time theatre experience with modern themed shows and performances. The theatre received several awards at this year's New Jersey Association of Community Theater's Perry Awards. The production of ``All Shook Up,'' a lighthearted musical comedy based on Shakespeare's ``Twelfth Night,'' was named Best Production of a Musical. In addition, the show's female star, Nicole Mangano, won the award for Best Youth Lead Actress in a Musical. The production also won awards for Best Lighting and Best Sound Design of a Musical thanks to the work of Shawn McGovern and Chris Rodig. Mr. Speaker, the Broadway Theatre of Pitman and these individuals should be recognized for their achievement at the Perry Awards. I look forward to the Broadway Theatre of Pitman educating and entertaining the South Jersey community for many years to come.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bob Shryock for his contributions to South Jersey through his journalism and civic involvement. Mr. Shryock began his long and successful writing career at the age of 11 as a daily golf columnist. Since this precocious start, Mr. Shryock has worked for 62 years in the newspaper industry and written over 10,000 columns. He began his South Jersey career as sports editor for the Gloucester County Times in 1964. During this time, Mr. Shryock hired me for my first job. It was my responsibility to call Mr. Shryock and report on Bellmawr Little League scores. It was a duty I took very seriously and I remain grateful for that opportunity to this day. Between 1969 and 1980, Mr. Shryock was managing editor for both the Gloucester County Times and the Camden Courier Post. His columns are still a highlight for me in the Gloucester County Times. Mr. Shryock is a very active member of the South Jersey sports community and has been a high school football announcer for over 30 years. In 1967, Mr. Shryock co-founded the Touchdown Club of South Jersey to honor high school football players. The club has expanded over the years to honor athletes for both their athletic achievements and their academic successes. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have benefitted from Mr. Shryock's sage words for many years. I look forward to reading many more columns from Bob and I hope that he will continue to announce at football games for many years to come.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor State Senator Nia Gill for her contributions to the 34th legislative district of New Jersey and its residents. A proud mother and grandmother, Senator Gill was born in Glen Ridge and raised in Montclair. Before earning her law degree at the Rutgers School of Law--Newark, Senator Gill graduated from Upsala College. Senator Gill also holds an honorary Doctor of Laws from Essex County College. Ms. Gill began her career in government as a Legislative Aide to the late Senator Wynona Lipman, over 20 years ago. After serving four terms in the New Jersey State Assembly, Ms. Gill was elected to the New Jersey State Senate in 2001. Senator Gill's district includes Montclair, East Orange, Glen Ridge, Clifton, and Woodland Park. In January of 2010, Ms. Gill was chosen by her Senate colleagues to serve as Senate President Pro Tempore. Currently, Senator Gill is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, making her the first African American and the first woman to hold this position. An advocate for human rights, Senator Gill has sponsored legislation that provided more than 100,000 young, uninsured New Jersey citizens with health insurance coverage. Ms. Gill has also assisted women-owned businesses in New Jersey with a bill providing loans and training, ensuring that these businesses are able to prosper in the future. A respected member of the legislative community, Senator Gill was honored by Selma, Alabama as one of the `100 women in the 20th Century' who contributed to the struggle for civil rights. Senator Gill will also be honored as a community leader by the Rutgers School of Law-- Camden at the Champions of Social Justice and Equality Banquet. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Senator Gill and thank her for her legislative accomplishments on behalf of the state of New Jersey and its residents.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. The question that I asked was: Will the bill that eventually gets here that has numbers in it have a 25 percent cut by going back to 2006 or a 22 percent cut by going back to 2008?

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I would ask what the bill that the leadership brings to the floor will ask for. Will it be a 25 percent cut that goes back to 2006 or a 22 percent cut that goes back to 2008?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. All those who care for and think about the 15 million unemployed people in this country, on both sides of the aisle, want the Congress to work together to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for Americans, but the new majority, right out of the gate, has ignored that obligation. The first week, they ignored the deficit and passed a set of rules that says they can pretend it doesn't exist when they want to do something. Then they increased the deficit by repealing the health care bill. The Congressional Budget Office says that adds $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and more than $1 trillion over 20 years. This week, they are hiding the deficit. They brought to the floor a bill that wants the American people to guess what the numbers will be under which we will live in the future. This is not the way to create jobs, either generally or specifically. Here is one fact the Members ought to take into consideration. Last year, the departments that would be subject to up to a 25 percent spending cut under this bill made a million contracts with small businesses that gave $60 billion worth of work to caterers, electricians, other small businesses. What will happen to the jobs created by those small businesses if this 25 percent cut goes through? Now, I say a ``25 percent cut'' advisedly, because I do think we want to take one more attempt at finding out, and I would yield to the chairman of the Rules Committee, will the spending bill that eventually gets here cut by 25 percent to 2006 levels or by 22 percent to 2008 levels? I would yield to anyone on the other side who could answer that question for us. What will the number be in the bill that eventually gets here?

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, that sounds awfully familiar. We were promised an open process, but it was a closed process on health care. We were promised an open process, but it was a closed process on this bill. That sounds to me like a promise we have heard before that really hasn't been honored thus far in this Congress. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to my friend.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor District Attorney Seth Williams for his service and dedication to the City of Philadelphia and the surrounding community. Raised in West Philadelphia by his loving parents Imelda and Rufus Williams, Mr. Williams graduated from Central High School in 1985. He later attended Pennsylvania State University, where he served as President of the Black Caucus and President of the Undergraduate Student Government. He continued on to graduate studies at Georgetown University where he earned his law degree. After law school, he served ten years as the assistant district attorney of Philadelphia and as the Inspector General for the city until 2008. Mr. Williams' dedication and drive proved vital on his path to the District Attorney's office. His perseverance pushed him through last year's Democratic primary and the general election last November. Mr. Williams' election made him the first black District Attorney in Philadelphia history. District Attorney Williams currently lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Sonita, his mother Imelda, and his two daughters, Taylor and Hope. I am pleased that Mr. Williams will soon be honored as a community leader by the Rutgers School of Law-Camden at the Champions of Social Justice and Equality Banquet. Mr. Speaker, Seth Williams has an impressive record and I wish him continued successes in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Rick Ober for his service to the students of Woodrow Wilson High School. A graduate of Rutgers School of Law-Camden, Mr. Ober practiced criminal law in Southern New Jersey and Pennsylvania prior to beginning his teaching career. He currently teaches U.S. history, urban studies, civics and government at Woodrow Wilson High School in Camden. Mr. Ober also leads the school's award-winning New Jersey Model Congress Team and acts as an advisor for the student government. Additionally, he was elected as the union head for Woodrow Wilson's Camden Education Association. Mr. Ober is also a founder of the Woodrow Wilson High School Candidate's Forum, a program that brings politicians, including Senator Arlen Specter and Governor Jon Corzine, into the school to discuss current political issues with the students. Incorporating his love of music and teaching, Mr. Ober is involved with the Symphony in C of Haddonfield both through performance and education. Mr. Ober has also brought classical music education to underserved communities through the Classroom Symphony Project. Mr. Ober helped to develop a program that prepared developmentally disabled adults to attend symphony performances. I am happy to announce that Mr. Ober will soon be honored as a community leader by Rutgers School of Law-Camden at the Champions of Social Justice and Equality Banquet. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Mr. Ober for his work with the students of Woodrow Wilson High School and his efforts to bring government to life for the children of Camden.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. The author of that quote is not a Democratic Member of the House. It is not a White House spokesman. The author of that quote is retired Secretary of State Colin Powell who said yesterday: ``Tell me what you're going to cut.'' The minority doesn't want to grapple with that problem, which is why there are no amendments made in order, no numbers in the bill, and no reason to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, there are 15 million Americans without a job. And this debate represents yet another wasted opportunity for us to come together and address the real number one issue of the country, which is putting people back to work. The debate also represents a curious lack of clarity as to what exactly the majority is proposing. And there are words in this resolution, but there aren't numbers. So I did some research of my own about numbers. Let's take FBI agents, for example. Now, the resolution says that security spending is exempted, but it doesn't define security spending. When we passed the budget for FBI agents here, that budget is under the Commerce, Justice, Science budget, so I don't know whether this is within security spending or not. But here is what I do know. Here is what I do know. In the present fiscal year, if we maintain the budget that we've been living under since October 1, we are on track to spend $7.6 billion on FBI agents. If we do what the resolution says, which is to go back to what was spent in 2008, we would spend 22 percent less than that, or $6.5 billion. If you look at the average salary of an FBI agent, that would mean we would have to make do with 1,720 fewer FBI agents than we do today. Now, I would be happy to yield to the sponsor of the resolution for him to tell me whether or not that is true. If this passes, are we going to have that level of reduction in FBI agents?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman, and he is correct that in the NIH budget it could come from Labor or Health and Human Services. And I would ask him: In that bill, where will you make up for not cutting the cancer research by 22 percent? I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, this is what General Powell was talking about: tell us where to cut, and we get verbiage, but no real answer.

Mr. ANDREWS. First of all, I am most assuredly not demonizing the gentleman. I think the gentleman speaks with great sincerity. What I am saying is that the gentleman said I know exactly what is going to be cut. No one knows exactly what is going to be cut. Can you tell us, Mr. Chairman, where in the NIH budget you are going to make up the difference for not cutting cancer research by 22 percent?

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has said we won't have across-the-board cuts. That, of course, means that we will have to find larger cuts than 22 percent in other areas of the Justice Department budget. The court system? Enforcement of the immigration laws? The other things that the Justice Department does? The resolution says nothing about what those would be, so I think we can be critical on another area. For the budget year that we are in, we are spending about $5.8 billion a year on cancer research at the National Institutes of Health. If we do what the resolution says, we will cut by 22 percent and spend $4.6 billion on cancer research. The average cancer research grant is about $350,000. That means that we would have 3,628 fewer cancer research grants. If we are not going to have an across-the-board cut, I would again say: Where else in the National Institutes of Health will we cut? Research for Alzheimer's? Research for diabetes? Research for other areas? The resolution says nothing. And here is what a prominent American has to say about resolutions like this: ``You can't fix the deficit or the national debt by killing NPR or the National Endowment for the Humanities or the Arts. Nice political chatter, but that doesn't do it. And I'm very put off when people just say let's go back and freeze to the level 2 years ago. Don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. Tell me what you're going to cut, and nobody up there,'' meaning Capitol Hill, ``yet is being very, very candid about what they are going to cut to fix this problem.''

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, well, we could have a bill on the floor today that expands fair trade for American companies, but we don't. We could have a bill on the floor today that finds ways to stop sending a billion dollars to the Middle East to buy oil every day and instead create jobs producing energy in America, but we don't. We could have a bill on the floor today talking about ways to regenerate our real estate market and get people buying and selling houses again, but we don't. What we have is an empty promise that someday, somehow, the new majority will come to the floor with a bill that will fix the health care problem. Quoting from Speaker John Boehner, he said on June 18, 2002, ``Instead of focusing on new health care mandates that will increase costs on employers and swell the ranks of the uninsured, Senate Democrats should focus on providing access to health insurance for the 39 million of Americans who remain without health coverage. That should be our first priority.'' So at a time when Republicans had a majority in this House, a President in the White House, and for most of the time a majority in the Senate, their first priority, which was to deal with the health care problem, they didn't do. That's the standard against which we should measure today's promise. It doesn't leave much room for much optimism. I would say, instead of focusing on yet another empty promise, let's focus on putting Americans back to work.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to explore one of the aspects of this repeal promise that's being kept. Thus far, there are hundreds of thousands of seniors who have gotten $250 rebate checks to help them pay for prescription drugs. I would ask anyone on the other side, what does the legislation say about whether or not the seniors will have to repay those checks to the government? I would yield to anyone who can answer.

Mr. ANDREWS. So in the hours that we've spent thus far during this debate, we could have been debating ways to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for the American people, but we did not. Instead, we have gotten the slogan, ``job-killing health care bill.'' The slogan is very much at odds with the facts. The fact is that since the health care bill was signed by the President, the private sector has generated 1.1 million new jobs. The fact is that the chief economist for Barclays says he believes that the economy is on track to add many, many jobs this year, probably 200,000 or so per month is his projection. We've heard about protecting the children and grandchildren of the country against mounting debt. For years, there has been an understanding here that the referee in budget disputes has been the Congressional Budget Office, through Republican and Democratic majorities. Republican, Democratic, and Independents, they are the referee who decides what the rules are. So the Congressional Budget Office was asked by Speaker Boehner to score this repeal, and they came back and said, Well, Mr. Speaker, this is going to add over $1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years. The majority didn't like what they said, so they just chose to ignore it and make up the rules as they go along. But what they haven't done as they've gone along is still answer the fundamental question we started with this morning. When a mother of two 4-year-old twins goes to buy health insurance and the health insurer says, ``I'm sorry, we won't insure your family because your 4-year-olds have leukemia,'' should that be legal or not? That's the question. The law the President signed in March says it should be illegal. This repeal says, let's go back to the good old days where the insurance companies made that decision. We are not going back. We should go forward as a country to create jobs for our people and end the charade we've seen on the House floor here this morning.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. As we sit here this morning, there are millions of Americans sitting in front of computers or the want ads desperately looking for their next job, 15 million unemployed Americans. The question they are asking this Congress is why don't you work together to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for our country? The answer the majority gives them is we will get to that someday. What they are doing today raises some real questions as well. A mother has two 4-year-old twins who are diagnosed with leukemia and tries to buy health insurance. The insurance company says we won't sell it to you because your children have leukemia, or we will charge you five times as much. We say that should be illegal and the law today the majority tries to repeal says differently. A ``yes'' vote for repeal means she is told, Sorry, no insurance. A person who has faithfully paid his premiums for years and suddenly needs a quadruple bypass heart operation receives a letter from his insurance company that says, Sorry, we are rescinding your coverage. We say, and the law says, that should be illegal. But a vote for repeal says, Sorry, you are on your own. A pregnant woman who has a very difficult pregnancy and gives birth to a child with severe impairments that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each month, the law says, and we say, that the insurance company should be legally obligated to pay her bills as long as she and her baby need it, no lifetime policy limits. But a vote for repeal says she's on her own. A senior citizen who runs out of prescription drug coverage the Fourth of July or Labor Day, the law says, and the bill says, they should get some help to continue to buy their prescriptions for the rest of the year. But a vote for repeal says she's on her own. We're all on our own on paying the debt. Our President is meeting with the President of China today; and as we do that, the majority is adding over $1 trillion to the national debt with this vote. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this bill doesn't create jobs for the middle class. It creates pain for the middle class. The right vote is ``no'' on this repeal. The right course is get back to the job of creating jobs for the American people. Vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think we should begin by thanking Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi for leading us through such a civil debate at such an important hour of our country's history; a moment of consequence. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of this debate is that we did not debate the issue that is most on the minds of the American people, which is unemployment and 15 million of our neighbors being unemployed. Having said that, there are lots of consequences to this repeal bill, and Members should be aware of each one of them. If a woman with breast cancer or a man with diabetes loses his or her job and tries to get another job, under the law that is in effect, the insurance company can't deny them coverage or charge them more for it because of their preexisting condition. This bill repeals that protection. It makes it legal for the insurance company to say, We're sorry, we are not going to sell you health insurance because you have breast cancer. We're sorry, we are going to raise your premiums fivefold because you have diabetes. These are serious, unwelcomed consequences. Another consequence of serving in this institution is that we are the people's House. We are the elected people who are closest to the people; and, therefore, we are expected to most understand the shoes in which they walk every day. Many of us say these things at our town meetings. I have heard this from Republicans, from Democrats, from tea party members, from Independents: Congress should live by the same rules it imposes on everyone else. I don't think you can go to a district in this country that people wouldn't embrace that idea. Indeed, on the Web site of our Speaker from the last term in the Congress, in his biography you can read the following. It refers to the Congressional Accountability Act which requires Congress to ``live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the Nation.'' It bears the unmistakable imprint of Speaker Boehner's drive to reform the House: live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the Nation. So this motion to recommit says the following: In the spirit of that principle, Members who support the repeal should live with its consequences. This repeal will become effective when a majority of this House and a majority of the other body are dismissed from membership in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that the taxpayers fund for the Members of the House. There are serious consequences of this bill. We believe that repealing it is unfair and wrong, just plain wrong. But it would be even more plain wrong for those who support repeal to live by a different standard. So I would say to the Members the next time you are in a town meeting, the next time you encounter your constituents in your district and they say, ``Don't you agree that if you agree to impose a certain set of rules on me that those same set of rules should apply to you?,'' this will be the answer to their question: If you vote ``no,'' you are saying that the repeal that denies coverage for preexisting conditions to others doesn't apply to you. If you vote ``no,'' you are saying that the repeal that lets insurance companies impose lifetime caps on your constituents' benefits imposes no caps on your benefits. If you believe that the consequences of our actions should be visited upon those we represent equally and on ourselves as well, then your vote should be ``yes.'' In the spirit of the people's House, in the spirit of walking in the shoes of those we are here to represent, the right vote on this motion to recommit is ``yes.''