Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I, frankly, do not. But reclaiming my time, I especially don't support paying the bills for Baghdad and Kabul that we could be using to reduce our deficit here at home. Third, we're going to spend at least $60 billion over the next 10 years to give tax breaks to oil companies that made record profits--$44 billion last year alone--as our constituents are paying over $4 a gallon at the pump. I support repealing those giveaways to the oil industry and putting that money toward the deficit. I don't see the gentleman anymore, I'm not sure how he stands on it, but we support that. Four, I support the idea that people who make more than $1 million a year might be asked to contribute just a little more in taxes to help reduce this deficit. Now I know the other side is going to say, well, this will hurt the job creators in America. There is an echo in this Chamber. In 1993, President Clinton proposed a modest increase on the highest earning Americans to help reduce the deficit. The former Speaker at the time, or Mr. Gingrich--he wasn't the Speaker at the time, he became the Speaker--said this would cause the worst recession in American history. He was wrong. The gentleman who became the majority leader, Mr. Armey, said that this was a recipe for economic collapse. He was wrong. When we followed the supply-side trickle down the last 8 years under George W. Bush, the economy created 1 million net new jobs. But when we asked the wealthiest Americans to pay just a little more to reduce the deficit in the 1990s, the economy created 23 million new jobs. So when they ask, where is the plan, here is the plan: Don't abolish Medicare the way they plan to; negotiate prescription drug prices; stop paying the bills for Iraq and Afghanistan; stop the giveaways to oil companies that make record profits; and ask the wealthiest in this country to pay just a bit more to reduce our deficit. Let's put that plan on the floor and reduce the deficit that way. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ANDREWS. My friend who just spoke asked us where the plan is to reduce the debt and deficit. If he is here, I would be happy to yield to him, but I would ask him to consider these ideas. One, Medicare pays more than twice as much for a Coumadin pill than the Veterans Administration does because we have a law that the majority supported that says that Medicare can't negotiate prescription drug prices. I favor repealing that law and saving at least $25 billion a year. I would ask my friend if he supports that, and I would yield if he would like to answer.

Mr. ANDREWS. Does the gentleman support that idea? I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, we did not do so because we couldn't get two Republican Senators to support it on the other side. We would have done it over here. Second thing; does the gentleman support stopping the spending of $110 billion a year to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and instead spend that money here in the United States? Does the gentleman support that? I would ask him if he would like to answer that question.

Mr. ANDREWS. I'll repeat it. We are spending about $110 billion a year to help finance the Government of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would rather see that $110 billion a year reduce our deficit. Would the gentleman support that?

Mr. ANDREWS. Does the gentleman favor permitting Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, the way the VA does, and save $25 billion a year?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will further yield, it is my understanding and intent that there be no FY12 government funding for the F136 contractor.

Mr. ANDREWS. Twenty-three nights ago, a focused and brave group of young Americans climbed into helicopters and focused on their mission. Over 3 weeks ago, a group of American leaders met in the Situation Room of the White House focused on their mission. And over a 10-year period, a group of intelligence analysts and signal intelligence specialists and brave Americans all over the world focused on their mission to eliminate the menace of Osama bin Laden from this Earth. They succeeded in eliminating that menace, they succeeded in capturing valuable intelligence that will help us track down his coconspirators and stop them, and they sent a powerful message to any other evil rich person that wants to target the United States of America that such targeting is an act of suicide. We should salute those with that focus here tonight and reflect on the fact that our focus as Republicans and Democrats in passing this bill is to give other focused Americans in the military, our intelligence community, and those who support them the tools they need to do their job. I'm proud of the work that Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members did on this bill. There are controversial aspects of this bill, but this is a work that is focused on the defense of our country in the same tradition of those who so nobly served us 23 days ago. We should all join in a ``yes'' vote for this bill because it continues that tradition of our national security in a bipartisan sense. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, if a proposal were brought to the House floor that said the following, ``If an American makes a charitable contribution and takes a deduction on his income tax return, that we're going to disallow the charitable deduction if the group that's receiving the money promotes gun ownership, gun rights or gun education,'' I suspect it would not get one vote on the Republican side of the aisle, and it shouldn't get any votes on the Democratic side of the aisle because it's wrong and it's probably unconstitutional. That is exactly what the underlying bill does here. It says that an American exercising his or her constitutional right, in this case her constitutional right, with their own money, will suffer a negative tax consequence because the majority wants them to. Understand this. If an American woman, with her own money, chooses to exercise her constitutional right, she will be suffering an increase in taxes as a result of making this decision. I scarcely say that anyone on the majority side would agree that if we picked one of their favorite social issues and said we're going to raise taxes on people who engage in that social issue, much less than a constitutional right, that they would agree with this. This is not a debate about abortion. This is a debate about privacy. It's a debate about individual liberty and the right of people to do what they choose with their own money, particularly when they're enforcing one of their own constitutional rights. I would also say for the record, it's my understanding that if this bill is carried out, a person who is a minor who is a victim of statutory rape may not be able to avail herself of her constitutional rights with her family's own money.

Mr. ANDREWS. Members who are pro-life or pro-choice should oppose this bill because it does violence to the Constitution. This bill purports to say that through the Tax Code, we can favor or disfavor the exercise of constitutional rights. That's not right, and that's not constitutional. The Members on the majority side would certainly not support, nor would I, a provision that says you can't take a charitable contribution to support a group that lobbies in favor of pro-life causes. But if we wanted to disfavor that point of view in the Tax Code, this is the way we would do it. There is no difference between what the majority's doing here and that odious provision that I just described. It is wrong to raise taxes on people who exercise their constitutional rights because they've chosen to exercise their constitutional rights. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, if you are pro-Constitution, you should vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS. I know very well, Madam Speaker, that people feel passionately about the right to life and the right to choose, and this is the forum in which that debate ought to take place. But using the Internal Revenue Code to either punish or reward certain social conduct, particularly conduct that is in the exercise of a constitutional right, is wrong, and if anyone on the majority side would like to tell me that they would vote for that NRA provision, I welcome that. I wouldn't, because it's an impermissible, unconstitutional burden on the constitutional rights of Americans. So is this.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. There are nearly 15 million unemployed people in America, and I think most of them and those who are employed would tell us that what they want the Congress to be doing is finding ways to work together so that businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for the American people. Here we are again arguing about the health care bill or another piece of it. And this legislation has behind it the novel idea that if children get immunizations and well visits and get to see a nurse or a doctor when they are not feeling well, that somehow is not a wise use of the public's money. Now, let's put aside for the moment the idea of whether it is right or wrong to deny health care coverage for children in school--I think it is very wrong--and let's look at the balance sheet. Which is more expensive: a child who is hospitalized with pneumonia or 25 or 30 children who get a checkup? Which is more expensive: the outbreak of a flu that affects the entire school or the entire town or the early diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics of a kid with the flu? Common sense says that primary care for children saves money for everyone. Common sense says that children without insurance can most easily be reached in the school where, hopefully, they already are. Voluntary participation by children in a school with their parents' consent makes perfect sense. This legislation makes no sense to consider it now; it makes even less sense to pass it. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation and urge the House to get back to the business of working together to help entrepreneurs create jobs for the American people.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Robert C. Messina, Jr., as he enters his 25th year of visionary leadership as President of Burlington County College. During Dr. Messina's leadership, Burlington County College has grown substantially, now educating more than 11,000 students per year. The College received 22 commendations in its recent reaccreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, more than any other college in New Jersey. Their recent achievements are a strong reflection of Dr. Messina's tireless efforts. His work has benefitted the entire South Jersey community, enriching residents' quality of life through sponsorship of cultural and regional activities. Dr. Robert C. Messina, Jr. should also be recognized as a humanitarian. He frequently volunteers his time on local, regional, state, and national boards and committees related to improving higher education. His dedication to exceptional and accessible educational opportunities makes him a role model to Burlington County and the rest of the country. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Robert C. Messina, Jr.'s commitment to Burlington County College and the local community merits recognition. I commend him for his achievements, and extend sincere best wishes in all his future endeavors as he enters his 25th year as president of Burlington County College.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. There is no question that the country has to reduce the deficit by restraining spending. That's why we favor having Medicare get the same deal on prescription drugs the VA does--which would save $24 billion a year. But there is a question about the future of Medicare. And today we're going to take a vote. Will Medicare prosper or perish? Will Medicare survive or die? That's the issue before the House today. The fact is the Republican plan puts an insurance company between our seniors and their doctors--and that is wrong. The fact is that the Republican plan does not reduce health care costs. Hospitals will not charge less. Doctors will not charge less. The government will pay less, and seniors will pay more--$6,000 per senior per year. The fact is that this is all being done not to reduce the deficit, but to reduce taxes of the wealthiest people in America. The fact is we should not have this. And the fact is this: We can have an America that doesn't have red ink in its budget but does have Medicare for its seniors. Let's make the choice that our constituents sent us here to make. Yes, let's sensibly reduce spending--as we did yesterday on a bipartisan basis. But this is the wrong time to end Medicare. We will fight this effort, and we will prevail.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, we need to work together to change America, to stop borrowing so much money and jeopardizing the future of our country. We agree on that. But it's important that we understand that it's not the way to do that to end Medicare, and here is what ending Medicare means to the seniors and disabled people of this country. Today, if a person on Medicare has a medical problem, they choose their doctor. The doctor and the patient decide what should happen next and Medicare pays the lion's share of the bill. This is a system that works for America's seniors and works for America's disabled. How do the Republicans want to change Medicare and end Medicare? This is what they want to do. You won't choose your doctor, the insurance company will. If a doctor decides that a certain test or procedure is necessary, he or she will have to ask the insurance company's permission to get that test done. And the bill won't be paid by Medicare. The bill will be paid by the insurance company when they feel like it, if they feel like it, for the amount that it should. The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this issue at the request of Chairman Ryan and concluded that by the end of the implementation of this plan, seniors will pay an extra $6,000 a year out of pocket for health care expenses: $6,000 a year, $500 a month, $125 a week, beyond what they are paying right now for health care. We will stand for Medicare. We will not stand for this budget. We will defeat it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on the vote for H. Con. Res. 35 and H. Con. Res. 36, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the commonsense compromise that says to the operating departments of our government, ``See if you can get by on 95 percent of the money you had last year.'' I think that makes good sense, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Mr. Dicks for making sure that Pell Grants, title I, special education are fully funded and protected and, frankly, salute both sides for leaving aside extraneous matters like not funding Planned Parenthood and not funding the health care bill. I think this is a worthy compromise. I'm glad to support it. I do want to note my grave concern with the rule and the rather ambiguous position we find ourselves in with respect to the actions of the Senate. About 10 days ago, the majority attempted to pass a bill where the Senate would never have to act. Now they want to say, even if the House and the Senate have both acted, apparently the bill doesn't become law. Maybe we should have put a few more education funds in for constitutional studies here because I think this is very unwise and, frankly, ambiguous. So I'm going to oppose the rule on the grounds that this very novel idea of giving the Clerk of the House the instructions not to enroll a bill that's been passed by both House and Senate I think is very troubling. Having said that, I think that the underlying bill merits the support of both Republicans and Democrats and I will be voting ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Dicks has the right idea. What we ought to vote on today is a 1-week extension that's clean, that just gets that done and keeps everybody going in the government, including the military, and then we should resolve our differences. I think that's what we ought to be doing this morning, but what's standing in the way of that is this values debate that I talked about earlier. Look, it's a position that we understand, which is that the majority party does not want to continue Medicare as we've known it for all these years. We strongly disagree with them, and we are prepared to have the fight to say why America needs Medicare as it has always been; but that disagreement should not shut the government down; that disagreement over values should not mean that the functions that people have paid for in their taxes don't go forward. Let's not shut the government down over this values debate. Let's have the values debate as the government continues to operate, and by all means, let's protect Medicare.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as we meet this morning, the top priority of the American people continues to be the jobs crisis in our country. There are too many people out of work and too many people worried that they are next. Last week, the welcome news came that last month the economy had created about a quarter of a million new private sector jobs. That's a good start, but it's not nearly enough. Shutting the government down just when the economy is starting to get back on its feet would be the worst possible mistake, but we're on the verge of that. It's important that people understand that the President has gone three-quarters of the way toward the majority party to settle this matter--didn't meet halfway; he has gone three-quarters of the way--but they won't go the full way because there is a fight here about values. This is a fight about what you value. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we value Medicare. We believe that after someone has worked their entire life and paid taxes into that Medicare fund that they should not have to worry that a trip to the radiologist will be followed by a trip to the bankruptcy court. This is what Medicare accomplished for our moms and our dads and our grandparents. It said that after a lifetime of hard work, if you have medical worries, they will just be medical worries, not financial worries, because Medicare will pay the bill. The gentleman from California talked about how they're not destroying Medicare; they're saving it. Let's talk about what they're really doing. Here's what happens: Today, if a senior goes to the radiologist of her choice, Medicare pays most of the bill and she pays a little bit of it. She decides what doctor to pick. She and the doctor decide what happens next, and no private insurance company gets in the way. Medicare pays the bill. What they are proposing is to end that system. So now what will happen under their plan is that the taxes that we pay into the Medicare fund will all be paid to health insurance companies. So we will trust the good hands that so gently guide our health care in the health care industry. We will give them the money, all of it, and trust them to do the right thing with the health of America's senior citizens. That is the wrong thing to do with the health of America's senior citizens. There is a fight here about values. It's a fight that shouldn't take place. We should settle the budget fight. The President has gone three- quarters of the way to the Republican proposal. Settle it today on that basis. But by all means, we will never yield, we will never concede, we will never concede the point that Medicare should be replaced by private insurance companies. The Congressional Budget Office has said, in analyzing Chairman Ryan's proposal, that the out-of-pocket health care costs for most retirees in America will go up. This isn't spending reform. This is having someone else pick up the tab. The hospitals aren't going to charge less. The doctors aren't going to charge less. The senior is going to pay more to get that coverage, and he or she is going to have to go ask permission from an insurance company as to what radiologist they can see. Then the radiologist will have to ask permission for what test he or she can order. Medicare is not perfect, but it works. We should preserve it and defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 229 on a motion to adjourn, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 230 on ordering the previous question (H.R. 910), I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 231 on H. Res. 203, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.'' Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 232 on the Journal, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225 for H.R. 1246, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who've known John for a long time and who have loved and cherished him, this is a very tragic and difficult occasion. I hope that Shelley and his boys know, in the depths of their grief, the breadth of love and respect for John that people feel tonight. His loss is tragic beyond words, but we can, for a moment, celebrate a victory over tragedy tonight that one person in 51 brief years could touch the lives and achieve the achievements that John Adler did in his life. His life was far too short, but it was rich, it was filled with laughter and achievement, and those of us who have been touched by his friendship count ourselves richer for the benefit of that. May God bless his family and rest his soul.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret Marsh, Outgoing Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Distinguished Professor of History for her service to Rutgers-Camden University. After thirteen years of exemplary leadership, she is stepping down as Dean and re-joining the faculty. Ms. Marsh earned her undergraduate degree from Rutgers-Camden University and later received her PhD in history from Rutgers-New Brunswick in 1974. Ms. Marsh distinguished herself as a leader, holding positions as professor, chair, and Dean within two different institutions of higher learning. Ms. Marsh was professor and Chair of the History Department at Temple University in 1997, then went on to become Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers-Camden in 1998. After becoming Dean, Ms. Marsh earned a reputation as a renowned expert in women's history, gender history, American cultural history, and the connections between gender and medicine. Her award-winning research on these topics was funded by a multi-year grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. She has shared these findings over the last thirty years, publishing several books, articles, and essays. During her tenure, Ms. Marsh has worked to expand educational opportunities for students. Thanks to her dedicated leadership, Rutgers launched the nation's first PhD program in childhood studies and created new PhD programs in public affairs and computational and integrative biology. Ms. Marsh also presided over the Faculty of Arts and Sciences increasing its support for its endowment fund by over 800%. This increase produced more scholarships for students in need and funded more faculty research programs. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Margaret Marsh on her career as Dean. Ms. Marsh has made a lasting impact on Rutgers' faculty and students, and I am inspired by her dedication and leadership to the university.