Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 102 days from today, every American who pays income taxes will face a substantial tax increase; 102 days from now, the estate plans of small business people will be blown asunder because of the changes in the Tax Code that will automatically occur; 102 days from now, workers at defense plants, medical research institutions, and other very important functions in our country will lose their jobs because of an across-the-board spending cut called a sequester. The response of the majority to this looming problem is to leave town. Now, I must confess that, given the majority's propensity to end the Medicare guarantee and provide tax cuts to millionaires, perhaps them leaving town does have a certain appeal. But under these circumstances--where there is a significant problem in our country, where farmers all across the country have no idea under what rules they will be running their farms and their businesses because a farm bill that received broad support from Democrats and Republicans on the Agriculture Committee has not made its way to the floor--in light of all this trouble, amidst all the stress of the American economy, the plan for the majority is to leave town tomorrow until after the election. This is irresponsible in two ways. First, I think we have a duty to act before the election so the voters of this country can assess where we stand and whom they want to have represent them in the years ahead. And second, the problems of American families will not be put on hold during the 6 or 7 weeks that we're back in our districts politicking. Then we'll all come back after the election--many people will be in what's called a lame duck status where they're not coming back--and we will compress all of these decisions into 5 or 6 weeks. This is just not the proper way to legislate. It's not the proper way to govern our affairs. So I would urge Members to oppose the previous question, which has the effect of putting on the floor legislation that would guarantee a tax cut, tax relief for middle class people, as well as the creation of jobs in our country because of clean energy. Now, you can agree or disagree with those propositions, but I don't think any of us disagrees with the proposition that in the face of these very real crises for the American people, we're just getting on the plane, getting on the bus, getting on the train and leaving town. It's the wrong thing to do. We should oppose the previous question and vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this resolution repeals a rule that doesn't exist and ignores some problems that really do exist. The policy from the Department of Health and Human Services says this: if a Governor thinks he or she has a better way to move people from welfare to work as two Republican Governors have asked for since that time, they can get a waiver from some of the rules in the welfare law if, and only if, they move more people from welfare to work than they otherwise would have done. The bill that the majority did report out of committee abolishes the work requirement. In fact, the only way to save the work requirement is to let this rule go into effect. That's the illusionary rule they are trying to repeal for the real problems that concern us, though. If you're a small business person that would like to have a tax cut when you create jobs, the House is ignoring that problem because we're not voting on that bill today. If you're a teacher or a police officer who's been laid off in the last 2 years, the House is ignoring your problem because we're not voting on that bill today. If you're an engineer or construction worker who would like to go to work building roads or bridges or trains, the House is ignoring your problem because we're not voting on that bill today. This resolution repeals an imaginary rule at a time of real, acute, and serious problems for the American people. The majority does have a plan to deal with those problems. They're going home for 6\1/2\ weeks. The American people shouldn't have to wait for 6\1/2\ weeks to solve these problems. We should vote down this bill, stay on the job and pass jobs legislation that really helps the American people and a farm bill that helps American farmers.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall No. 558; had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall No. 559; had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mayor Vincent Scriboni for his years of tireless public service to the Borough of Oaklyn, New Jersey. Mayor Scriboni was a pillar of his community who devoted his time to the community as a Councilman and Mayor. Mayor Scriboni dedicated his life to serving his community members and our country. As a Navy veteran from World War II, Mayor Scriboni served with distinction in order to protect the freedoms that all of us as American citizens cherish. Serving in the U.S. Navy was only the beginning of Mayor Scriboni's service to the Nation. He served as a Councilman for seventeen years and Mayor of Oaklyn for eight years. During his time in office, Mayor Scriboni was known as the ``People's Mayor'' because of his can-do attitude and willingness to volunteer to take on community projects. Among his many accomplishments, Mayor Scriboni managed Oaklyn's budget and was able to renovate the public works department without creating a deficit. In addition, Mayor Scriboni combined the two fire companies of Oaklyn, making the fire company more efficient and cost effective while still meeting the needs of residents. In concert with these efforts, Mayor Scriboni organized a coalition of local mayors that could share equipment and services. The coalition also saved the town money because the townships could make joint purchases on new equipment. Mayor Scriboni's excellent budgetary skills allowed him to increase the police force from six members to eleven members, which increased safety in the town. Furthermore, Vincent Scriboni was a member of several organizations dedicated to giving back to the Oaklyn community, including serving as commander of his VFW Post 4463 and participating in the Oaklyn chapter of American Legion Riders, Post 84. Mayor Scriboni led the efforts to help fellow veterans get the care they needed by providing transportation to the VA Hospital. Along with his VFW Post, the Mayor also participated in Patriots Pen and Voice of Democracy, which are dedicated to providing scholarships to high school students in the local community. Mr. Speaker, Vincent Scriboni's endless commitment to Oaklyn Township and the United States of America should not go unrecognized. I join the township and all of South Jersey in honoring this exceptional man.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our South Jersey Paralympian, April Holmes, who traveled to the London 2012 Paralympics to compete in track and field. April represents the United States on the world stage, serving as a role model for citizens across South Jersey and the entire nation. Her success, derived from her hard work and dedication, and exemplified through her competitive spirit, is something to which every American can aspire. In the same way that our national ethos rewards fortitude and persistence, April earned the opportunity to compete on the Paralympic stage through tireless training and sacrifice. Since the beginning of her career in 2002, April has succeeded on the world stage, setting and breaking her own world records. Through fierce competition amongst the greatest athletes in the world, she continually pushes the limits of human achievement. The bonds of friendship gained through equally world-class sportsmanship enrich her and our nation. Mr. Speaker, the dedication of this South Jersey Paralympian and her teammates should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in expressing our pride in April's efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Margaret ``Peg'' Barker for her tireless service to Maple Shade Township, New Jersey. Ms. Barker was a pillar of her community who ceaselessly worked to end adult illiteracy and protect the natural resources of Maple Shade Township. Ms. Barker was a tireless advocate for literacy. As the founder of the Maple Shade Friends of Literacy organization, she tutored international residents so they could learn to read and write in the English language. Ms. Barker volunteered a majority of her time teaching English because she viewed books as a window to knowledge and satisfying curiosity. She wanted other residents to have the ability to enjoy reading and writing as much as she did. However, Maple Shade Friends of Literacy was only the beginning of Ms. Barker's service to her community. She was a member of several town planning committees and various environmental committees that were dedicated to improving the lives of residents in Maple Shade. As a member of the Pennsauken Water Shed Committee, Ms. Barker volunteered her efforts protecting the environment by making sure that the water shed was safe for fellow residents. Furthermore, on her own time, Ms. Barker volunteered by mapping and marking every storm drain in the town of Maple Shade in order to protect turtles. Ms. Barker was dedicated to protecting the environment, but also extended her services to help the residents of Maple Shade in any way she could. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Barker's endless commitment to Maple Shade Township should not go unrecognized. I join the township and all of South Jersey in paying tribute to this exceptional woman.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize some recent innovations in private lending to graduate and undergraduate students in U.S. colleges and universities. I also want to encourage our nation's wealthy individuals to think about participating in these programs as one way to give back to our communities. Since its inception in 2011, the Social Financial company, or SoFi, has offered compelling community-based lending and consolidation programs, and this academic year will assist students from 45 colleges and universities across the country. At its core, SoFi demonstrates the powerful idea of community lending. It brings alumni, students, and schools together to ensure students' debt burdens are manageable. For the upcoming 2012-13 academic year, SoFi used its equity base and additional capital from alumni to secure $80 million to finance, fund, and support new student loans. This innovative student loan solution benefits students, alumni, higher education institutions, and our nation. The funds from school- specific lending pools allow students to enjoy comparatively low- interest loan rates and opportunities to refinance previous loans. In addition, the alumni that contribute to the pool earn a significant and low-risk return, while schools gain access to low-cost funding. Mr. Speaker, although I do not expect private lending schemes to supplant available federal loan structures, I believe Social Financial's commitment to the betterment and transformation of the financial services landscape for students sets an example for how to innovate in this field. I commend SoFi for its hard work, community partnerships and innovation, and congratulate SoFi on its continuous expansion to schools across the U.S. In order to tackle student debt, we will need to be creative, in exactly the ways SoFi has been. I encourage those who have the means and desire to give back to follow Social Financial's example and invest in the education of the next generation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Lawnside Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 for its tireless efforts protecting and serving the residents of Lawnside over the last 100 years. At this great milestone, I recognize the heroic work of these individuals who routinely place themselves in harm's way for the greater good of the community. These volunteers serve as vanguards of safety and stability, performing necessary duties that few are willing to undertake. Since its humble beginnings in 1912 with only a small fire hall and single Model T Ford, the Lawnside Volunteer Fire Company has found growth through determination and community initiative. Through fundraising and the awarding of federal grants, the Lawnside Fire Company steadily grew its fleet of emergency vehicles, providing greater lifesaving assistance to the Lawnside community. The Lawnside Fire Company has also gained statewide recognition as a premiere company, having won a series of awards at the annual New Jersey Firemen's Convention. Mr. Speaker, Lawnside Fire Company's contributions and endless dedication to the Lawnside community should not go unrecognized. I join the citizens of Lawnside and all of Camden County in honoring the achievements of this exceptional fire company.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, Americans who served on the school board or a parents council or the board of trustees, their fire company, that have ever had a dispute about what to do know that one of the ways to resolve the dispute is to say, Listen, let's take the things that we agree on and do them, and set aside the things in which we disagree and argue about them later. But let's agree on the things we can do and get them done. I think virtually every Member of this Chamber agrees that if a family makes less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, their taxes should not go up. Let's pass a bill that says that and then move on to the things on which we disagree. Here is one of the things that we disagree on: The majority's bill that's on the floor raises taxes on 25 million Americans, and they are some of the Americans who least merit and deserve a tax increase. For example, an E4 corporal in the Marine Corps with 4 years of service, married and with two children sees his taxes go up by $448 a year under the Republican bill. Under the Democratic bill, that Marine's taxes do not go up. A military police sergeant, an E5 in the Air Force, who has 8 years of service, with a spouse and three young children would see a tax increase of $1,118 a year. How could this be? In 2009, President Obama increased the earned income tax credit, which helps low-income people who work for a living, and he increased the child care credit, which is working people with children. We pay our marines, our Air Force, our Army, and our sailors a lot less than we should. They're very underpaid, and they take advantage of these tax breaks.

Mr. ANDREWS. The Democratic bill preserves these tax rules for working families, including members of the military; the Republican bill does not. So I would urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to do the following: Let's oppose the rule that's on the floor, which gives us a chance to amend the bill. When we amend the bill, let's cancel out the tax increase on the Air Force sergeant of $1,118 and let's cancel out the tax increase on the Marine corporal of $448. Vote ``no.'' [From the Center for American Progress, Aug. 1, 2012] House Republican Tax Bill Leaves Some Military Families Behind Military Families with Modest Incomes Could Lose Important Tax Credits (By Seth Hanlon) The House of Representatives today is scheduled to vote on a House Republican proposal (H.R. 8) that purportedly extends all tax cuts but actually raises taxes on about 25 million families by reducing certain tax credits. The 25 million families include middle-class families and students who currently benefit from a tax credit for college expenses. Others are parents raising children on modest incomes who are helped by the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. Some, as illustrated below, are members of the U.S. military and their families. The competing Democratic proposal, which has already passed the Senate (S. 3412/H.R. 15), extends all income tax cuts for the 98 percent of families with incomes under $250,000 ($200,000 for singles), including these tax credits in their current forms. Below are three illustrative examples of military families whose tax bill would rise next year under H.R. 8, the House Republican tax bill. A corporal (E4) in the Marines with four years of service, who is married and has two children would see a tax increase of $448 under H.R. 8. In 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law improvements to the earned income tax credit--an important tax credit that boosts the earnings of low- and moderate- income workers. In 2009, 211,000 military families benefitted from the earned income tax credit.[1] One of the 2009 improvements reduced the tax credit's so-called marriage penalty (phasing out the credit at higher income levels for families that file joint tax returns). H.R. 8 would let that provision expire, increasing the marriage penalty and thus reducing the EITC for married couples in the phaseout range. With military basic pay of $27,660[2] (and assuming no other household income), this Marine Corporal's family is affected by the worsened marriage penalty under H.R. 8. As a result, the family's tax credit would be reduced by $448 under H.R. 8 compared to the current tax rules, the Senate- passed bill, and the House Democratic alternative. Here are the details: Marine corporal (E4), four years' service, married with two children; Military basic pay: $27,660 Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and Democratic plan: $4,326 Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $3,878 Tax increase under H.R. 8: $448 A military police sergeant (E5) in the Air Force with eight years' service, with a spouse and three young children at home, would see a tax increase of $1,118 under H.R. 8. Another provision enacted in 2009 boosted the value of the earned income tax credit for families with three or more children, reflecting the fact that these families have a higher cost of living. H.R. 8 would let this provision expire, so that families with three or more children get the same-sized tax credit as families with two children. With basic pay of $34,723, this sergeant's family would be affected by both the earned income tax credit's worsened marriage penalty under H.R. 8 and the reduced credit for families with three or more children. In total, the family's earned income tax credit would be reduced by $1,118 under H.R. 8. Under the Senate-passed bill and the House Democratic alternative, it would not be cut. Here are the details: Air Force sergeant (E5), eight years' service, married with three children: Basic pay: $34,723 Earned income tax credit under current tax policy and Democratic plan: $3,508 Earned income tax credit under H.R. 8: $2,390 Tax increase under H.R. 8: $1,118 A private in the U.S. Army (El) in his first year of service, who is married with an infant child, would see a $273 tax increase under the Republican plan. The child tax credit generally provides a $1,000 credit per child. But the credit is only partially ``refundable'' for families who do not have federal income tax liability in a given year. H.R. 8 would reduce the ability of some low- income families to claim the credit. That is because the credit's refundability is based on the level of a family's earnings above a certain threshold--and H.R. 8 would raise that threshold. With basic pay of an estimated $18,196 in 2013, the Army private's family's income is too low to owe federal income tax because of the standard deduction and personal exemptions. Under H.R. 8, the family would only be able to claim a partial child tax credit, limited to $727. In contrast, under the Senate-passed bill and the House Democratic alternative, the family could claim the full $1,000 credit for its child. Here are the details: U.S. Army private (El), first year of service, married with one child: Basic pay: $18,196 Child tax credit under current tax policy and Democratic plan: $1,000 Child tax credit under H.R. 8: $727 Tax increase: $273 These are just three typical military families who face a tax increase from H.R. 8's failure to extend important tax benefits for working families. Many families with similar incomes, military and nonmilitary, would face similar tax increases because of H.R. 8's failure to extend the child tax credit and earned income tax credit improvements. H.R. 8 also fails to extend the American opportunity tax credit for families and students paying for college. In all, the House Republican plan raises taxes on about 25 million families, including 18 million families with children (constituting 37 percent of all families with children).[3] By contrast, all 98 percent of families with incomes under $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) would see no tax increase under the Democratic bill, and the 2 percent of Americans with higher incomes will keep tax cuts on their income up to those amounts. Seth Hanlon is Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairlady from Florida and my friend from California for recognizing some grave and serious points. First, they recognize that on the 11th of September of 2001, 19 people armed with airplane tickets and box cutters wreaked havoc on the United States of America. They recognize that a group of people with a small, improvised nuclear device could wreak havoc far worse than that on the Mall that stands in front of this building or on Times Square. Weapons these days are not just delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles; they can be delivered by U-Haul trucks or by other means. This is the essential threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation to the United States. The choice that we face is whether we should take concerted action to prevent that threat or whether we shouldn't. I commend the chairlady and my friend from California for choosing to unify this Congress, this country with the rest of the world with the proposition that we should present the Iranian leadership with a choice. If they decide to abandon their nuclear weapons program--which they illicitly concealed for 25 years--if they agree to live under international protocols, then the sanctions that have been imposed will be lifted and we can move forward toward peace and progress. But if they do not, they will most certainly suffer the consequences of a deteriorating economy and problems within their social structure. We have made our choice to stand united in favor of these strong sanctions. We are presenting the Iranians with their choice. Let us hope and pray they make a choice for peace and renewed prosperity.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our South Jersey Olympians: Tamika Catchings, basketball; Rachael Dawson, field hockey; Michelle Vittese, field hockey; Jordan Burroughs, wrestling; and Steve Kasprzyk, rowing. They have traveled to London to compete in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. These athletes represent the United States on the world stage, affording them the distinct honor of serving as role models for citizens across South Jersey area and the entire nation. Their success, derived through hard work and dedication, and exemplified through athletic competition, is something every American can aspire to as a shining example of the American dream. In the same way our national ethos rewards fortitude and persistence, these athletes earned the opportunity to compete on the Olympic stage through long hours of training and sacrifice. Part of the Olympic Creed, originating from a speech by Ethelbert Talbot during the 1908 London Games, states: ``The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.'' One hundred and four years later, as the Olympics return to London, the message rings as true as ever. Through fierce competition amongst the nations of the world, these athletes continually push the limits of human achievement. The resulting bonds of friendship, gained through equally world-class sportsmanship, enrich both these athletes and their nations. Mr. Speaker, the dedication of these South Jersey Olympians and their teammates to athletics and sportsmanship should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in expressing our pride in their efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady. If I could speak on the gentleman's reservation, obviously there is no nefarious intent. There's no question about that. I would like the House to understand where we are procedurally. It's my understanding that the House, yesterday, spent the better part of the day debating a bill which said that regulation should not take effect until unemployment hits 94 percent. Is that the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. ANDREWS. I would assume that that flows from the fact that people didn't read the bill, because we debated yesterday for most of the day on a bill that erroneously said ``regulations can't take effect until unemployment hits 94 percent.'' The intention evidently was ``until employment hits 94 percent.'' Then it's my understanding that we find ourselves at the present moment in a situation where the correcting rule that would have fixed the word ``unemployment'' to be ``employment,'' itself, has an error in it, that it refers to another bill by reference; is that correct? And I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, my understanding is it was in the fourth paragraph of the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I agree completely with the gentlelady that human mistakes are made, but that is not what this is about. And certainly the House should review----

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. Ranking Member, I recently wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense to ask for his assistance in documenting the annual cost to the military of treating servicemembers and veterans who are living with hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus is a medical condition characterized by the abnormal accumulation of fluid within the brain. Experts suspect that two-thirds of the 41,000 servicemembers diagnosed with moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries over the past decade also suffer from hydrocephalus. The primary treatment for hydrocephalus, a shunt implanted in the brain, was developed decades ago and has the highest failure rate of any implanted medical device. Veterans living with this condition will face a lifetime of medical uncertainties and incur costly brain surgeries, unless a better treatment is found. Would the ranking member, the gentleman, be willing to work with us to help gain a better understanding of the incidence and cost of hydrocephalus among our injured servicemembers and veterans so we can focus the appropriate amount of DOD research dollars on finding a better treatment? I yield to the ranking member.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of Taiwan and a founding member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I would like to bring to your attention an issue of concern to Taiwanese Americans and the people of Taiwan. The former President of Taiwan, Mr. Chen Shui-Bian, is currently serving a 19-year prison sentence for corruption charges. He has been incarcerated for over 1,200 days thus far. Today, I am inserting into the Congressional Record a summary report drafted by a three-man medical team led by former professor Joseph Lin, Ph.D., and professors of the University of California at Davis Medical Center, Ken Yoneda, M.D., and Charles Whitcomb, M.D., who visited Mr. Chen Shui-Bian in jail in Taiwan last month in their capacity as private citizens. The report is titled, ``The Effects of Incarceration on the Mental and Physical Health of Former President Chen Shui-Bian of Taiwan.'' A full transcript of the report is available here: http://www.fapa.org/public/ CSB_Report_to_TLHRC_12Jul2012.pdf. These medical professionals traveled to Taiwan in June 2012 to assess President Chen's physical and mental condition, and to inquire into reports of inhumane living conditions and confinement. The physicians concluded that President Chen's imprisonment conditions are contributing to President Chen's health problems. In their recommendations the report concludes: ``Former President Chen Shui-Bian [should] be released from confinement on medical parole based on the above assessments, conclusion and recommendations, and on compelling humanitarian grounds.'' I am entering this report into the Congressional Record and, in light of the conclusions, ask that the distinguished Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission investigate this important case at its earliest convenience. Report to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, United States House of Representatives An Assessment and Recommendations The Effects of Incarceration On the Mental and Physical Health of Former President CHEN SHUI-BIAN of Taiwan (By U.S. Citizen Medical Team--Joseph Lin, Ph.D., Ken Yoneda, M.D., Charles Whitcomb, M.D.) July 12, 2012

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sabrina Umstead Smith, and her husband Roosevelt Smith, for their work to provide resources and financial support for the families of chronically ill children by founding the non-profit organization, The Erick J. Umstead Memorial Foundation, Inc. In 1988, Sabrina lost her first husband in an apartment fire while expecting a child. As a result of oxygen deprivation caused by the fire, the child was born with underdeveloped lungs and cerebral palsy. Tragically, just three years later her young son succumbed to these medical disabilities. Sabrina knows the challenges of caring for a chronically ill child. Motivated by a desire to make a tangible difference in the lives of chronically ill children and their parents and caregivers, she founded the Erick J. Umstead Memorial Foundation. The foundation provides numerous services, to the families of chronically ill children, students, and medical professionals. Caregivers Count provides grants to financially disadvantaged parents and caregivers. Future Health Care Leaders offers scholarships for undergraduates who intend to pursue providing care to chronically ill pediatrics. The Assistive Technology Program awards grants to hospitals and pediatric facilities to purchase specialized equipment and devices that facilitate the developmental progress of chronically ill children. In addition to financial aid, the foundation also provides a resource center for parents on their website, and distributes donated pajamas for chronically ill children. Mr. Speaker, Sabrina's endless dedication to chronically ill children and their families should not go unrecognized. I join all of South Jersey in thanking her for her efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I am.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, if my amendment passes, we will proceed immediately to final passage of this bill. It doesn't delay or defer consideration in any way. My amendment raises the following question: Should Members of Congress live by the same laws we write for everyone else? I say we should. The last 2 days have been filled with sincere focus and passionate debate about the future of the Affordable Care Act. Members whom I respect and admire have taken strong positions saying we should repeal the law. Members whom I respect and admire have taken strong positions saying we should uphold and enforce the law, as I believe strongly. But whether you believe in the repeal of the law or the upholding of the law, you ought to believe in the basic principle that when we write a law around here, we should live by that law the same way everybody else does. So my final amendment says that supporters of repeal should live by the same consequences that everyone else will live by if they succeed in repealing the law. You see, because if my amendment does not pass and the bill passes, Members of Congress will be protected if an insurance company tries to discriminate against us because we have had breast cancer or asthma or diabetes, but our constituents will not enjoy that protection. If my amendment does not pass but the underlying repeal bill does pass, Members of Congress cannot be forced to pay higher premiums because they are female or because they are a certain age, but our constituents will not enjoy that protection. If the final bill passes without my amendment passing, we will be able to take our sons and daughters who are less than 26 years of age and keep them on our own policies, but the people who pay our salaries, our constituents, will not have that protection. If the underlying repeal bill passes without the amendment that I'm offering, then we would, as Members of Congress, get help paying high prescription drug bills under Medicare, but our constituents under Medicare would not enjoy that same benefit. If my amendment does not pass, and the underlying repeal bill passes, if, God forbid, a member of our families is struck with a horrible disease or malignancy and runs up millions of dollars of bills, the insurance company will not be allowed to say, ``Sorry, we're going to stop paying your health care bills because you've run up against a lifetime or annual policy limit,'' but Members of Congress will have that protection. So, you see, I think this comes down to a basic point: If we write a law, we should live by it. This is something that I think most Members, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, say when we go home to our district. We, frankly, have all encountered constituents who wonder why we don't pay into Social Security. The truth is we all do--we all do--just the way our constituents do. We run into constituents who say that they don't understand why our sons and daughters can pay off their student loans or get them forgiven for free when their kids can't. That's false. Our sons and daughters live under exactly the same student loan rules everybody else does. We have people ask us, you know, how come we don't follow the tax laws everybody else does. We most certainly do. Republican, Democrat, liberal, and conservative live by exactly the same laws that we write. I don't think we should make an exception to that policy here. And if you don't vote for this final underlying amendment--and I think we all should--if you don't vote for this final underlying amendment, understand what happens. Members of Congress are protected against preexisting conditions, but our constituents aren't. Members of Congress are permitted to have our sons and daughters on our policies until they're 26, but our constituents can't. Members of Congress can't be charged more for premiums because of their age or their gender, but our constituents can. Members of Congress under Medicare would get certain rights and privileges and their prescription drugs, but our seniors and constituents can't. I think whether we agree or disagree with the Affordable Care Act, we all ought to agree with this principle: When Congress writes a law, we should all live by it. So I would respectfully say to my friends, both Republican and Democrat, if you believe in the law you're having to vote for today, then vote to live under it as well. Vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.