Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. It must, Mr. Speaker, be a luxury to have the ability to think about the great sweep of economic history since the 1930s, and I enjoyed very much the remarks of my friend from California, but we're here to talk today about 2.5 million Americans who don't have that luxury. These are people who have been out of work for a very long time, and as the first of the month rolls around very soon and there's no rent payment or no mortgage payment in their checking account, as they find it difficult or impossible to pay their utility bills, their health care bills, and they're slipping away, these are the Americans that we're here to talk about this afternoon, 2.5 million Americans. The extension of unemployment benefits should have been done a very long time ago. There should not have been this wait to extend the benefits. Some people said that we should delay the benefits because people aren't looking hard enough for a job who are on unemployment. I would challenge those who make that assertion to go walk in the shoes of someone on unemployment a little while and see just how difficult it is to find a job. The problem in America today is not that people aren't looking hard enough for work. It is that frankly not enough jobs are being created. We can all agree to that. How to fix that problem is a subject of debate in this country and on this floor. But as we have that debate, isn't it the right and good and decent and necessary thing to do to look after the interests of those 2.5 million Americans, and should it not have been done a while ago? Now, why wasn't it? There are Members who in good faith in the other body argued that the bill should not even be voted on, not even be taken up, until there was money set aside to pay for the cost of the extension of the unemployment benefits. That was their argument. Sounds like a fairly plausible argument until you look a little bit beneath the surface and understand these are many of the same Members of the other body who are calling for a permanent extension of tax reductions to the wealthiest Americans. Let me explain what that means. These are people who are saying in the days of a person who owns an office building and a person who was laid off from a job cleaning the office building, that the following rules ought to apply.

Mr. ANDREWS. I think my friend would say this: that that philosophy says that the person who got laid off from her job cleaning the office building at night can't get unemployment benefits unless we find a way to pay for it, but the guy who owns the office building, who would get a half million dollar a year tax break, should get that tax break whether or not there is money to offset that expenditure. Now, I just don't understand that. I don't understand a philosophy that says that you have to offset and pay for help to a person who cleans office buildings, but by no means do you have to offset a tax break for a person who owns the building.

Mr. ANDREWS. If you have that philosophy, shouldn't it, at the very least, have been put up for a vote? Wasn't it wrong for people in the other body to deter that from even coming up for a vote? They have gotten beyond that hump. Too little, too late in many ways, and we have an opportunity today to do our duty, put that issue squarely on the floor. Our colleagues on both sides should vote ``yes'' and let this House have its say and work its will so that we can address the very real needs of 2.5 million of our fellow citizens. I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there's been discussion on the floor of the long term. For the long-term unemployed in this country, the long term happened yesterday, or today, actually, the first of the month when the rent comes due and you can't pay it or your mortgage comes due and you can't pay it. They're living in the long term right now, and they need some help. And I think that considering this bill today is the right thing to do. I do want to reference the remarks which preceded me a few minutes ago by my friend from California, the senior member of the Rules Committee, about how, had the Congress embarked on the path he suggested early in 2009, that the economy would be so much stronger. And he is a fierce and articulate advocate of that point of view. But let's examine what that point of view is and what its track record is. The gentleman from California argued for cuts in marginal tax rates, mostly distributed to people at the top end--not all, but mostly. He argued for deregulation of the domestic markets and for a policy that pursues that goal. That is a quite accurate description of the economic policies of the administration of President George W. Bush. They cut marginal tax rates--mostly at the upper end of the scale--almost all at the upper end of the scale. They engaged in a systematic practice of deregulation of Wall Street and other industries. And it yielded, quite frankly, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Were those policies the sole cause of that? Of course not. Is what the American people need a rehashing of that failure? Of course not. The American people need a policy that will grow jobs, and although the jobs are growing much more slowly than I think any of us hoped, the reality is the economy shed 8\1/2\ million jobs following the policy that my friend from California would like us to go back to; and it has gained just over a million jobs since the beginning of this year. Those are the facts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, is there anything--I note that the custom of the minority is to give about 3 minutes notice on motions to recommit. Is there anything under the rule requiring the minority to give more notice than that of 3 minutes on a motion to recommit?

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend from California for his leadership and my friend from Florida for hers. This is what bipartisan leadership looks like. Mr. Speaker, you know, the risk that we are working against today is not simply a missile striking innocent people halfway around the world. It would be a nuclear IED striking people around the corner. Make no mistake about it. One of the risks that we confront is that a nuclear-weapon Iran that can make highly enriched uranium might well share that highly enriched uranium with a terrorist group, and the next SUV that is parked in Times Square might have a nuclear IED in it. Iran could very well be the source of such an attack. We must stop that, and this legislation today goes in that direction. To those who say that the Iranians don't fear sanctions, then why did they try to strike this deal with Brazil and Turkey on the eve of the U.N. sanctions? To people who say that energy sanctions won't work, then why have the Iranians tried to embark on a crash course to replace gasoline with natural gas? This is the right move at the right time. I thank my chairman for authoring it, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Americans seem to have been misled that they are not going to be able to see their doctors under Medicare anymore because of some legislation that came out of here. This bill today makes it emphatically clear that that is emphatically not true. The bill today restores the full reimbursement rate for doctors and for other providers who see America's senior citizens. The majority of us wanted to make that a permanent fix last summer. Only one minority Member voted for that. Just a few weeks ago, the majority of us wanted to extend that far beyond this. Almost no one on the minority side voted for that. Today, I assume just about everybody is going to vote for this, and I'm glad, but let the record be clear: No one here is prepared to see a day when Medicare doctors turn their patients away. That is not the truth.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ronald Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers, and longtime advocate of workers everywhere. I stand to recognize him for his vision for America. Mr. Gettelfinger's first experience with Ford Motor Company's labor unions occurred in 1964 when he started working as a chassis line repairman at the Louisville Assembly Plant. After a few years, his co- workers elected him committeeperson, bargaining chair, and president of the local union. He worked his way up through UAW Region 3, was elected national vice president in 1988, and president in 2002. His second term as president will expire with the election of a new president at the UAW convention in Detroit later this week. Mr. Gettelfinger's down-to-earth personality has been a huge asset to him as UAW president. He has stood by the Union's mission to secure economic and social justice for all people, and believes that every person and every job is important. Mr. Speaker, Ron Gettelfinger's leadership as president of the United Auto Workers and advocate for health care reform should not go unrecognized. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the right of Israel to act in self-defense, which requires the inspection of cargo going into area controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas surrounding the Gaza territory. The inspections are vital because Hamas has smuggled in thousands of rockets to attack and terrorize Israeli civilians. Hamas has clearly stated its goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the leaders of the Gaza flotilla, particularly those on the Mavi Marmara, set out to intentionally use force to confront the blockade. If the blockade were to be broken, it would be impossible to tell which vessels were carrying humanitarian supplies and which were carrying deadly rockets. As a sovereign nation, Israel has the right to protect its people from the threat of terrorism. Israel warned the boats that they were in violation of a lawful blockade and offered them an alternative where the humanitarian aid would be off-loaded and delivered to Gaza. The flotilla, however, insisted on attempting to circumvent the blockade because their primary motivation was confrontation. Israel is a long-standing democratic ally of the United States. We must stand with Israel and defend their right to defend the Israeli people.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. If a small business person has 50 or fewer full-time employees, there is no mandate on that business to do anything. Businesses which choose to provide health insurance to their employees will have the same abilities that huge companies have to buy health insurance at a discount if they choose. Companies with fewer than 50 full-time employees don't have to do anything. Many of the small businesses which do choose to insure their employees will get significant tax cuts to help them do that. After all of these words, isn't it time we had some loans for small business? Isn't it time we had some tax cuts for small business and some affordable health care for small business? If you want words, take the minority's approach. If you want action, support this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is axiomatic in American politics and on this floor that Members come to the floor and praise small business to the heights. People frequently cite statistics which state that small businesses create most of the new private-sector jobs. They're right. They praise small business men and business women, and they are right to praise them. Though, I think, after all the words, it is time that we took some action that actually benefits small business people in the country. This bill provides such action. It provides access to credit for small businesses which desperately need it. I think Americans are frustrated--and small business people share in the frustration--that, after advancing hundreds of billions of dollars to banks, many of those dollars haven't seemed to find their way into loans to small businesses. The underlying bill begins to address that problem in a very significant way. It extends a practice that this chairman and his predecessor began of extending tax cuts to small businesses. A small business that buys a laptop or a truck or some other piece of equipment can expense that. Businesses can, in effect, cut their taxes by investing their businesses in the economy. Then we have the ironic statement by the minority leader that, in order to help small businesses, he wants to repeal a law that helps small businesses, for the first time, buy health care. What the new health care law says is that a person running a small software company or a restaurant or a delicatessen should be able to buy health insurance with the same volume discount that Lockheed Martin or General Electric gets. Small business people have been asking for that opportunity for a very long time. The law the President signed provides that. It is very important to understand that, with all due respect, the minority leader did not correctly state the impact of the bill on small business, so let the record correctly reflect the state of the new law.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, this motion is a guaranteed increase in middle class health insurance premiums for all Americans. If that's what you want, you should vote for it. But you know, when a person goes to the emergency room and is uninsured, doesn't have health insurance, they get health care. The question is who pays the bill. The provision that is before us from the minority party says that insured middle class Americans should pay the bill. The law the President signed in March says something very different. It says that everyone has the responsibility to earn and pay for, at a reasonable price, their own health insurance. The question is not whether uninsured people get care; the question is whether insured middle class people pay for it or not. The question is whether when someone has breast cancer or asthma and is turned away because of a preexisting condition that we will be able to insure that person at regular premiums. If you don't have nearly everyone insured, you can't do that. So if you think that middle class people paying other people's bills is the right way to go, this is your motion. If you think that we should no longer provide health insurance coverage for those with a preexisting condition, then ``yes'' is your vote. Our opponents talk of freedom. I think it's time that middle class Americans were free from paying other people's bills and paying for the insurance company mandates. So if that's your version of health care reform, and I believe that's the majority of Americans, then your vote is ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Marion Emily Ford for her 95th birthday. Mrs. Ford is a devoted mother, grandmother, and great grandmother, and for this she deserves great praise. Mrs. Ford was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on February 12, 1915. During the Great Depression, she left school at age sixteen to help her parents who were raising eleven children. Her first job was as a saleswoman for Wanamaker's Department Store. While working at Wanamaker's, she was approached to be an understudy for Vivian Leigh, the famous star of Gone with the Wind. Mrs. Ford turned down the flattering offer. She moved to New Jersey in 1948, and settled in the Fairview section of Camden until 1975 when she moved into her daughter's home in Brooklawn. Mrs. Ford has a deep appreciation for her heritage. She is a proud great-granddaughter of Pecan Wolf, a Native American from the Ottawa/ Chippewa tribe. Mrs. Ford also has a passion for reading that continued even though her sight was taken by macular degeneration. Madam Speaker, Marion Emily Ford's commitment to her family and community should not go unrecognized. I wish her a happy 95th birthday and all the best.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Zia Rahman of Voorhees, who passed away on June 1st, 2010 at the age of 65. He is survived by his wife of 60 years, Zahida, two sons, and five brothers. Mr. Rahman made a lasting mark on the Voorhees community for his religious passion and understanding. Mr. Rahman was the Managing Director of the Muslim American Community Association (MACA), but many will remember him for building a mosque in Voorhees. Six years ago, while trying to find a site for the mosque, Mr. Rahman and the MACA faced many obstacles. To overcome these challenges, Mr. Rahman brought together leaders of different backgrounds to create the Coalition for Multi-Faith Democracy. The members worked together to encourage tolerance and tear down stereotypes within the South Jersey community. Mr. Rahman inspired others with his passion to unite and build understanding between members of different faiths. Mr. Rahman was an advocate for peace and understanding. He spoke in front of community groups, churches, and synagogues to encourage a better understanding of Islam. One of his proudest achievements was creating an agreement of cooperation and understanding between his mosque and the Diocese of Camden. Mr. Rahman educated and connected many throughout his lifetime. He united many people of different faiths while breaking down stereotypes about Islam. Madam Speaker, Zia Rahman's commitment to Voorhees and its citizens should not go unrecognized. I express my deepest condolences to his family for their loss and pay tribute to the memory of this outstanding individual.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor forty-seven high school seniors in Camden County for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these forty-seven, ten are with the New Jersey Army National Guard; their names are Gabriel Gonzalez-Galarza, Baruch Zepeda, Adam Knight, Carlos Watson, Kourtney Scott, Esamuel Tutt, Louis Alcantara-Narvaez, Timothy Johnson, Resheena Whittington, James Sheridan. Sixteen have joined the Marine Corps; their names are Peter Cuoco, James Baume, Robert Distefano, Ashley Fitzgibbons, Nicholas Lentz, Kyri Chandle, John McConnell, Mark Wyatt, Natasha Rodriguez, David Nguyen, Matthew Deeney, Donato Cancelli, Daehan Bong, Erick Mistretta, Pedro Aldebol, Jasmin Ramos. Three have joined the Air Force; their names are Marc Eisenmann, Jade Bates, Efrain Cardona. Five have joined the Navy; their names are Matthew Wilson, Nicolle Morris, Wayne Young, Nicholas Lugo, Eric Jacot. And fourteen have joined the Army; their names are Chelsea Hunter, Erik Coates, Francis Ayala, Jacob Lambeth, Zachary Tavani, Ryan Langley, Joseph Olivo, Alexander Gonzalez, John Wilson, Elizabeth Vollmar, Matthew Kline, Matthew Lincoln, Jacob Colman II, and David Reeves. All forty-seven will also be recognized on June 2nd at ``Our Community Salutes of South Jersey.'' Later this month, these young men and women will join with many of their classmates in celebration of graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, they instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our country. Naturally, many may be anxious about the uncertainties that may await them as members of the Armed Forces. But, they should rest assured that the full support and resources of this chamber, and of the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead. It is thanks to the dedication of untold numbers of patriots like these forty-seven that we are able to meet here today, in the House of Representatives, and openly debate the best solutions to the many and diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a fractious world. Madam Speaker, their decision to serve our country will not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank these forty-seven graduating seniors for the selflessness and courage that they have shown by volunteering to risk their lives in defense of others. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Woodbury Rotary Club and the recent construction of the Woodbury Rotary Club Veterans Monument. The Veterans Monument recognizes veterans from the past, present, and those who will serve in the future. Construction of the monument would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of the Club Service Committee Chair, Herb Budd, Jr. Mr. Budd served as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army National Guard. He was elected President of the rotary club in 1971 and 2005 and served as District Governor in 1989. The Woodbury Rotary Club Veterans Monument has been an ongoing project since 2005. The monument is a ceremonial stone fixture, centrally located on the Rotary Park Memorial Walkway. Veterans of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marines and Army National Guard are honored for their service during both times of war and peace. The area around the monument will be made up of bricks engraved to reflect military service of individuals in the South Jersey community. This monument embodies the motto, ``Some gave all, all gave some'' by honoring those brave individuals who committed selfless acts for their country. The actions of these men and women ensured peace and freedom for American people. The monument pays tribute to those who have lost their lives in combat, those who survived, and those who will serve in the future. Madam Speaker, the Woodbury Rotary Club should be recognized for their time and effort spent constructing a permanent tribute to our veterans.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. So here's one of the issues before the House today. Say you have an American company that owners live here and they decide that they can make more money by sending their jobs to Asia or south of the border, out of the country, and they do. And they bring the money home and enjoy it here, but the jobs go overseas. And they figure out a way to game the tax laws so they don't pay taxes for that business to the United States Treasury. So the profits come home, the jobs go overseas, and the tax revenue doesn't flow into the Treasury. This bill closes that loophole. It says, if you outsource our jobs from this country, you don't get off the hook when it comes to the IRS. Now, what does it use the money for? Well, if an American business goes into a bank today and the bank says, you know, we would make this loan to you to expand your business but we just need a little more collateral, a little more guarantee, this bill says the Small Business Administration can step in and make that loan happen and create those jobs. Or a woman running a software company or a biosciences company says, I've got a real opportunity here to hire more scientists and researchers, but I just can't quite find the capital. This bill says she can hire five scientists for the price of four because of the research and development tax credit, or the mayor and council of a town is saying we could fix our antiquated clean water system. We could build a new water treatment system and have cleaner water and more jobs for people in our town, but the interest rates are just a little bit too high for us. If we could borrow the money just a little bit less expensively, we could create more jobs. This bill says that they can do that. This bill creates jobs, and it pays for the creation of those jobs by saying that those who outsource our jobs can't get off the hook and have to pay their fair share of taxes. Now I know this discomforts some on the minority side. I know it goes against their philosophy that whatever corporate America does, it is okay. We think if you outsource your job you shouldn't get off the hook for your tax obligations.

Mr. ANDREWS. I know that it was a longstanding tradition under the prior administration and the erstwhile majority to let people outsource American jobs and not pay their fair share of taxes. Those days are ending, and the days of jobs hemorrhaging from this economy are ending because we are reinvesting in small businesses, local governments, and entrepreneurs around this country to put our people back to work. That's the legislation before the House today. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas made a statement, I believe, that most of the jobs created were census jobs. Did the gentleman tell us how many jobs were census agency jobs created in the last 2 months? I yield to the gentleman to answer the question.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would say to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, through the Chair, that maybe, instead of a dictionary, we should have a math book or a history book brought out, because there is some historical context, recent historical context, to this discussion. Mr. Speaker, we were told in January of 2009, with respect to the Recovery Act that was on the House floor, that it is clear that it doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen. That was said by our friend, the minority leader of the Republicans, Mr. Boehner, that it is clear that the recovery bill doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen. Now, in the 3 months that were in the context of that remark, for example, in March of 2009, the economy lost 753,000 jobs. In April of 2009, it lost 528,000 jobs. We brought to this floor a bill that put construction workers back to work by building transportation projects. If they bought homes, we gave people tax credits for their downpayments. We sent more people to colleges and to universities on Pell Grants. We cut taxes for small businesses and families across the country. Then what happened? Well, in March of this year, the economy added 230,000 jobs. In April of this year, the economy added another 290,000 jobs. So the other side said in good faith, in January of 2009, these things would not work. They were wrong. They haven't worked as quickly as we want. They haven't worked as much as we want, but the tired philosophy that says that inaction and inattention will fix the problem has failed. A philosophy that says that giving American entrepreneurs, American taxpayers, American construction workers the chance to succeed will and does.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman said that most of the jobs created in the last 2 months were census jobs. How many were created in the last 2 months that are census jobs? I yield to the gentleman.