Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. In the CMS report the minority references, the ``M'' stands for Medicare. CMS is in the business of counting and accounting for the Medicare program. Here's what they said: Under the law before the health care bill passed, Medicare was going to run out of money in 2017. We have extended the life now to 2029 and can build on that to save Medicare. The report also says that they made estimates, subject to interpretation, about health care costs in the rest of the system, but here's what they assumed: They assumed that medical records sharing and technology won't save any money. Most people think it will. They assumed that wellness programs that stop people from smoking and start exercising won't save any money. Most people think it will. They assumed that insurance companies having to compete with each other will not save any money. Most people think that it will. The fact of the matter is the health care law extends the life of Medicare by 12 years, something the erstwhile majority never did when it was in the majority.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Paul Price upon his retirement and to recognize his outstanding contributions to Camden County and the state of New Jersey. Chief Price is known for his integrity and selfless nature. He has worked diligently to gain five million dollars in grant money for fire fighters in Camden for safety and preparedness. Chief Price goes significantly above and beyond the call of duty to give resources to those in need, working long nights and weekends so that the fire department has everything it needs. Chief Price's commitment to Camden County is also evidenced through his civic service affiliations. He has been active in the Camden County Fireman's Association, New Jersey Deputy Chief Association, Port Security Committee, Camden Cooperate Watch, and he was Emergency manager for the City of Camden. Despite all his work, his peers point out that he has never sought the spotlight and that he has always kept the best interests of the Camden Fire Department and its firefighters in mind. Beyond his civic duties, Chief Price has been recognized by the Camden community as always being ready to offer a helping hand in times of need. He is the driving force and backbone of the Camden Angels Program, working tirelessly every Christmas to ensure 3,500 children receive Christmas presents. Chief Price also donates his time to spring festivals, special needs carnivals and activities, and through outreach to the hungry and homeless. He also has given endless support to the Fugitive Safe Surrender Program in Camden City. Madam Speaker, Chief Paul Price's work and dedication are truly praiseworthy. I wish Chief Price the best of luck upon retirement and I thank him for his commitment to his community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Black Achievers Program. I applaud the participants for their achievements and the staff, mentors, and Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Black Achievers Committee for their continuing commitment as role models in our community. The Black Achievers Program began in the 1960s at the Harlem YMCA with the mission of helping youth set and achieve educational and life- long goals. The program expanded nationally, and in 1998, the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA adopted it. The Program's goal is to prepare youth participants in grades five through twelve to become Black Achievers in their future careers by building their character and skills, while providing positive mentoring relationships with caring Adult Achievers. The thirty-seven students who are participants in the 2009-2010 school year are: Zayna Allen, Jamirah Barden, Steven Barden, Bria Barnes, Victoria Carden, Imani Coston, Ashley Edwards, Phylicia Flagg, Joshua Forehand, Alexis Givens, Adam Harley, Aneyjah Harris, Jon'ae Jackson, Todd Jamison, Jr., Cesar Lopez, Jazsmine Mayer, Jonathan Mayer, Maya McLeod, Cameron Mitchell, Chelci Mitchell, Aunyee McCummings, Kevin Monroe, Jr., Imani Mutyanda, Munashee Mutyanda, Jason Nutt, Fredrick A. Parsons, Jameka Parsons, Ne'andrea Paulevra, Sean Paulevra, Tamar Richardson, Dwayne Scott, Jr., Jeffery Scott, Ashley Simmons, Isaiah Smith, Kwame Thompson Haynes, Diana Williams and Brianna Whitehead. These thirty-seven individuals embody the program's core values. They have acquired the leadership skills and self-awareness needed to attain success in any endeavor they choose to pursue. Every year, the Connell Company, based in Berkeley Heights, NJ, generously sponsors the scholarship program and provides other vital support to the Program. Their generosity has supported the Program since its inception in 1998. The staff members dedicated to the program and its students are: Senior Director of Childcare, Camp and Teen Services Susan Morton, Coordinator Tarajee W. Russell, Assistant Coordinator Tania Mayer, Tutor Romina Cahiwat, and Alumni Volunteer Jasmine C. Farmer. These individuals, as well as the volunteers on the Black Achievers Committee of the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Board have worked tirelessly to ensure the success of the program. The Westfield YMCA's Chief Executive Officer Mark Elsasser, Chief Operating Officer Paula Ehoff, Communications/Development Director Bonnie Cohen, YMCA Board chairman Stephen Murphy and the rest of the staff are deeply committed to the success of the Program. Lastly, the Black Achievers Committee Chairman Carlton Blake and the entire Black Achievers Committee should be acknowledged for the tremendous effort and dedication they put forth to keep the Black Achievers Program running. Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Black Achievers Program for encouraging students to develop their fullest potential in spirit, mind, and body. I urge them to continue to raise the academic standards of our young people and inspire them to reach all of their goals. I congratulate the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA, the Black Achievers' Program Committee, the Program and its staff and participants on their accomplishments and I thank them for their commitment to their community and I thank them for their commitment to their community.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Irvin Richter for his induction into the New Jersey Business Hall of Fame. Mr. Richter has demonstrated significant leadership and dedication to his community, and for this he deserves great praise. A Laureate induction into the New Jersey Business Hall of Fame is a lifetime achievement award for individuals making a significant, positive impact on New Jersey. Inductees demonstrate, as Mr. Richter has throughout their professional lives high ethical standards, mentorship, community involvement and innovative leadership. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hill International, Mr. Richter is known for his expertise in the field of construction contacts and claims. His reputation for excellence is worldwide, after working on projects such as the Channel Tunnel, EPCOT, Reliance Oil Refinery, Athens Metro, King Khalid Military City, Petronas Twin Towers, Washington Metro, and the Alaska Pipeline. Mr. Richter is not only an actively sought expert, but also an international arbitrator and mediator for the leading participants in the industry. In addition, he has provided expert witness testimony on numerous occasions regarding contractual and damage issues. Mr. Richter has been honored as a Distinguished Alumnus from his alma mater Wesleyan University and from his Law school, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. He is a member of the World Presidents' Organization (WPO) and the Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT). He is a current and past member of the Board of Trustees of Rutgers University, the Board of Directors of the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), the Board of Governors of Temple University Hospital and the Board of Directors of the ACE Mentor Program. In 2002, Mr. Richter was made a fellow by the CMAA for his contributions to the construction management industry. At that time, he was one of only 17 Fellows in the history of the organization. Madam Speaker, Mr. Richter's contributions to his field and to state of New Jersey should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank Irvin Richter for the exceptional leadership he has provided and the impact he has made all over the world. I congratulate Mr. Richter on his induction to the New Jersey Hall of Fame and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th birthday of Thomas S. Higgins. Mr. Higgins has lived a life of compassion and dedication towards his family and his community and for this he deserves great praise. Mr. Higgins was born in Camden, New Jersey on April 23, 1935. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in political science from St. Joseph's University before earning his Juris Doctorate at Villanova Law School. After graduating, Mr. Higgins and his partners founded a successful practice in Laurel Springs, New Jersey. During his forty- year tenure as an attorney, he specialized in environmental law, serving as counsel to the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority and the Cape May Municipal Utilities Authority. Mr. Higgins represented both governmental and personal clients with the utmost vigor and integrity. Mr. Higgins has also served as chairman of the Health Care Facilities Finance Authority. In this role, he helped obtain financing for the construction, expansion and renovation of hospitals and other health care facilities throughout the state of New Jersey. Additionally, he has served as a Camden County Freeholder, as a chief fundraiser for the Camden County Democratic Committee and as a member of the Finance team for the campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jim Florio in 1989 and 1993. Among his most rewarding moments was preparing the background information for the successful nomination of Governor Florio for the 1993 John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award. All who know Mr. Higgins know his love of law and politics is exceeded only by his love for his wife, Kathy, his partner and teammate for 27 years. Until her passing in 2006, the two were inseparable and together were an inspirational story of love and dedication. A devoted family man, Mr. Higgins' takes great pride in the successes and achievements of his seven children, and in the blissful faces of his twelve grandchildren. Madam Speaker, Thomas S. Higgins's contributions to his field and the state of New Jersey, and his commitment to his family should not go unrecognized. I am honored to be a part of his special day, and I would like to personally wish him a Happy 75th Birthday.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there is a justifiable and broad consensus in our country and in this Congress that the regime in Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The issue is how to achieve that objective and why to achieve that objective. We cannot act in isolation to achieve the objective. We must act to isolate Iran. This has been the fruit of the persistent diplomacy engaged in by the administration, assisted very nobly by Chairman Berman and our ranking member that has brought us to a point where the world is now isolating Iran. Iran stands essentially alone in support of the proposition that its behavior has been justifiable. The sanctions that are proposed by the underlying bill will be effective because they will force the Iranian leadership to choose between the prospect of prosperity if they drop their nuclear chicanery and the certainty of economic stress if they persist in retaining it. The best evidence that these sanctions are effective is the crash program the Iranians themselves have embarked on to switch from gasoline to natural gas as a means of propelling vehicles. More important than how to do this, though, is why to do this. In the early 1930s, there were ugly statements and vicious images coming out of Europe. People insisted that people who worried about that were exaggerating the threat. So much of the world, including, sadly, the United States turned away as those ugly signals were sent. The result was a tragedy of unspeakable proportions: 6 million innocent people killed in the Holocaust. Today, there are ugly signals and words coming out of Tehran.

Mr. ANDREWS. There are ugly signals saying that one Holocaust is not enough, that the Jewish state should be wiped off the face of the Earth. We ignore these ugly signals at our own peril. We should learn the terrible history of the thirties and not repeat it. We should act swiftly, decisively and united with the rest of the world to impose meaningful sanctions on the Iranian Government that will prevent the day of an Iranian nuclear weapon from ever occurring. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, urge a ``yes'' vote and the swift adoption of the underlying legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. It's ironic that this Congress funds what are called institutions for democracy that help to teach fledgling nations around the world how to build democratic institutions, and I am glad we do. I think it's good for the country to do that. It's kind of ironic that in the context of doing that we have had fiascoes where on two occasions one person has said that extending unemployment benefits to people in grave need can't even be voted on. And now we have a situation where a minority, one would theorize, is going to take a position that says we can't vote on this very important establishment of fair rules to protect the American consumer. I thank the gentleman for calling this to the body's attention, and I am honored to serve in a body where we do take votes, and we do have majority rule and we do get on with the business of the country.

Mr. ANDREWS. Has the gentleman ever been in a situation where the body sees a serious problem and says, look, we have a plan to fix it, but let's not take a yes-no vote on it because let's let a small number of people decide, because they have some interest persuading them not to support it, that we shouldn't even put it up for a vote? Is that the understanding the gentleman has the way government works in this country?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I know that tonight many Americans are going to put their head on the pillow and have a very restless and maybe sleepless night again because tomorrow's going to be another day of trudging around with a resume that no one seems to want. Maybe they're concerned that tomorrow will be the day that the final foreclosure notice arrives in the mail. Tomorrow may be the day that they have to pull the plug on their small business that they struggled so hard to sustain. This problem began to metastasize, this cancer began to grow in this country in the summer of 2007 when the days of irresponsibly cheap credit and easy credit came to an end and the bubble began to burst. In the part of the country that I represent, between Labor Day of 2007 and Labor Day of 2009, we lost about 36,000 jobs, just evaporated, the way eight million jobs evaporated around this country. Now, the President took office in January of 2009, inherited what I believe was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we decided to act to try to take advantage of it, put some people back to work building highways and roads and bridges, cut taxes for small businesses to buy a laptop or a truck or a piece of equipment. We had a substantial tax cut for just about every family in the country; 98.5 percent of American families had a credit so people could buy a home and get a substantial down payment to buy a home. And these steps, although I believe they were in the right direction, opposed unanimously by the other side of the aisle, have taken us in the better direction; but they are not enough. In my area of those 36,000 jobs we have lost between Labor Day of 2007 and Labor Day of 2009, we have gotten about 16,000 of those jobs back since Labor Day of 2009. So between September of 2007 and September of 2009 we lost 36,000 jobs. From Labor Day of 2009 to the present we have gained about 16,000 of them back. I worry, Mr. Speaker, tonight, and I say to my colleague as well, that one of the reasons we haven't gotten enough of those jobs back soon enough is the credit crunch in this economy. I hear from entrepreneurs large and small, people running stores and factories and software companies, that they are profitable, they have collateral, they have a track record of paying their bills on time, but they cannot get credit. They cannot get the loans that they need to make their businesses grow. This lack of credit is rooted in a lack of trust, and this lack of trust is rooted in a lack of confidence, and this lack of confidence, without a doubt, is rooted in the failure of the regulatory system to properly regulate the financial system and assure the investor and the American people they are getting a fair deal. Now, this House late last year passed legislation that would fix that problem, that would have some even-handed regulators look at whether the system was once again teetering on the brink of collapse, that would say that if you lend money, you have to have some skin in the game. You can't have one industry that makes a profit by originating loans but doesn't collect any of them, and another industry that's solely responsible for collecting the loans but doesn't originate them. The legislation also said that if these steps to prevent another catastrophe failed, the next time there has to be a bailout of the failure; it won't be paid by real estate agents and teachers and truck drivers. It will be paid by the people who created the mess in the first place. Now, a version of this legislation is being considered by the other body, and I know that the rules do not permit us to comment on the affairs of the other body, so I will not. I will simply offer this generic observation. When the health care bill was in its final stages of debate, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle loudly insisted, I think correctly insisted, that there be an up-down vote on all aspects of the health care bill, and there was. It was an up-down vote on the underlying text of the Senate bill, and there was an up- down vote on the fixed bill that occurred. That's the right way to do things. When there is a major question before the country, that will be an up-down vote. I would hope that the other body adheres to that principle. With an issue this significant, with the stakes being so high, I think the American people not only have a right to demand that the problem be fixed. I think they have a right to demand they know that their Representatives go on record and say yes or no. Mr. Garamendi, we say ``yes'' to responsible regulation, we say ``yes'' to getting credit flowing again in this economy and we would say ``no'' to those who would block a vote to block the will of the American people.

Mr. ANDREWS. That certainly is my recollection as well that there was virtually unanimous opposition to these new rules of the road, to the people who drove the economy into a ditch. But I will say this, that at least there was a vote, wasn't there, that the American people got a chance to see where each of their elected Representatives stood on the question of new rules of the road for the financial industry. The gentleman from California has served in a lot of levels of public service. I believe he served in the California legislature and he served in a lot of other governing bodies. Is it correct that usually when you are trying to solve a problem you put it up for a vote? Is that usually what happens?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues today in introducing the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. On March 23, the House Armed Services Committee's Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform completed its work by unanimously agreeing to its final report after a year-long investigation of the defense acquisition system. We held 14 hearings and 2 briefings and looked at the whole spectrum of the acquisition system. We found that while the nature of defense acquisition has substantially changed since the end of the Cold War, the defense acquisition system has not kept pace. It is still a system primarily designed for the acquisition of weapon systems at a time when the acquisition of services, and of information technology, represents a much larger share of the Department's budget. These other areas of acquisition operate very differently from weapons acquisition, but are just as complex and just as risky for taxpayers. It was clear to our Panel that changes are needed, but the extent and complexity of the problem presented a real challenge to us. Ultimately, we did find a group of common, overarching issues that we were convinced needed to be addressed. Across all categories of acquisition significant improvements can and should be made in: managing the acquisition system; improving the requirements process; developing and incentivizing the highest quality acquisition workforce; reforming financial management; and getting the best from the industrial base. The IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 goes directly at each of these issues. It requires DOD to regularly and comprehensively assess the performance of the defense acquisition system, and puts the newly created Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis in charge of these assessments. These assessments would not simply be material to fill reports to Congress. These performance assessments would be linked directly with the things that matter most to the people in the system: pay, promotion, and the scope of their authority. A similar performance management system is required for the current requirements process for weapon systems and the bill requires DOD to develop a requirements process for the acquisition of services. These systems will now be held accountable to the Department's senior leaders. The bill also requires DOD to revisit its acquisition policy to correct the bias towards weapons system acquisition, and requires DOD to assign actual military units to assist in the development and evaluation of major weapon systems. The central pillar of the defense acquisition system is the acquisition workforce. Only through supporting, empowering, rewarding, and holding accountable the acquisition workforce can the defense acquisition system be expected to improve. To achieve this, the bill gives the Department the flexibility to efficiently hire qualified new employees, and to manage its workforce in a manner that promotes superior performance. DOD is required to develop new regulations for the acquisition workforce which include fair, credible, and transparent methods for hiring and assigning personnel, and for appraising and rewarding employee performance. The bill also extends and codifies the Acquisition Workforce Demonstration Program, which already incorporates a number of these important elements, but has been dormant while the Department tried to implement NSPS. Another key pillar of success for the defense acquisition system is the Department's financial management system. DOD's inability to provide accurate and timely financial information prevents it from adequately managing its acquisition programs and from implementing true acquisition reform. The bill requires DOD to establish meaningful incentives for the military services to achieve unqualified audits well before the current mandate of September 30, 2017. It also requires consequences if they do not meet this mandate, which was enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The last pillar underpinning the defense acquisition system is the industrial base. The bill requires the Department to enhance competition and gain access to more innovative technology by taking measures to utilize more of the industrial base, especially small and mid-tier businesses. And in managing that industrial base, the bill directs DOD to work with responsible contractors with strong business systems. It requires contractors to disclose whether they are delinquent on their taxes when they bid on a federal contract. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation through the House in the coming weeks.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret Marsh, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, for being chosen by the Rutgers University Alumni Association for induction into the Rutgers Hall of Distinguished Alumni in 2010. Ms. Marsh is one of 195 individuals who have received this award out of 380,000 Alumni. It is the highest honor given to any Rutgers University graduate. Ms. Marsh earned her undergraduate from Rutgers-Camden University and later received her PhD. in history from Rutgers-New Brunswick in 1974. After becoming Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1998, 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. She has shared her vast knowledge having written several books, articles, and essays on these subjects. Ms. Marsh has shown immense dedication to the success of her institution, and with her leadership, Rutgers' ability to serve the citizens of New Jersey has grown. Ms. Marsh is both a dedicated administrator and gifted faculty member teaching both undergraduate and graduate students as a Distinguished Professor of History. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Margaret Marsh on this achievement. Her accomplishments represent the very definition of Rutgers pride and should not go unnoticed.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the Speaker. I thank the gentlelady. The American people very clearly want bipartisanship, but equally clearly they don't want paralysis. They have had 40 years of talk about solving this problem, and now they want it solved. At the Blair House summit, the minority said it would be a good idea to have new ways to cut back on fraud and abuse in Medicare, so it's in the law the President signed on Monday and in this underlying bill as well. The minority said that they would like a way for small businesses to pool together and make it easier to buy health insurance, so it's in the law the President signed on Tuesday and it's in the bill tonight. The minority said that they would like to find a way that people could buy insurance across State lines, so the bill tonight says that the exchanges that are created can be regional across State lines so people can buy and sell that way. The minority said they would like to see a way to cut back on nuisance lawsuits, so it's in the bill the President signed on Tuesday. There are many good ideas from both sides in this bill and on the law signed on Tuesday, but the best idea is to finally act. After 40 years of promises, 40 years of politics, 40 years of paralysis, 40 years of inaction, isn't it time that people can't get turned away because they have preexisting conditions? Isn't it time that hardworking Americans can afford health insurance? Isn't it time that seniors can finally get the prescription drug coverage? The question tonight is, Whose time is it? It's time for the working families and seniors of America. It is time to end the paralysis, end the politics and vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding. When you take your son or daughter to the emergency room, and you're sitting and waiting in the emergency room, you have a lump in your throat, and you're hoping and praying that when the doctor comes back, the news will be that it's just food poisoning and not a malignancy in your son or daughter's stomach. For many Americans, that joyous moment is followed by another lump in their throat, because even though you've got the joyous news that your child is okay, you can't pay her bill because you have no health insurance. And so many of those Americans for so very long, since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, have looked for the answer. What the President signed on Tuesday and what we do tonight will finally give them that answer. We will finally say that Americans who wait on tables and pump gas and clean our offices at night will finally have the ability to go home and not only thank God for the fact that their child is better but be thankful for the fact that they live in this country where every American finally has affordable access to health insurance. That is our mission here tonight. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the ladies and gentlemen of the House should respect our constituents who are against the bill, who are for the bill, and those who are undecided; but we should respect them enough to give them an accurate record of what's in the bill, and I think it's time for some accuracy. We have heard repeatedly tonight that there are cuts to Medicare in this bill. There is not one cut to not one beneficiary anywhere in this bill. Medicare benefits expand for prescription drugs and expand for preventive care. We heard someone say that the bill increases premiums for Americans. Section 1001 of the reconciliation bill says that for a family making $45,000 a year, if you look at their premiums, their copays and their deductibles, which is what real people have to do, the bill saves them $7,000 a year. We have heard that the special interest provisions, that I think are an abomination, are in the bill. They are not. If you read section 1201 of the reconciliation bill, it says goodbye to the so- called Cornhusker kickback and other special interest provisions. We heard that there is taxpayer funding for abortions. Read section 10,104 of the underlying bill. There isn't. We have heard that this is going to add to the deficit and the debt of the country. Don't listen to what the Democrats say. Don't listen to what the Republicans say. Listen to what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says, which is this: the bill will save $138 billion off the deficit in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion off the deficit in the next 10 years. Finally, we hear the bill will kill jobs. When the Clinton economic plan was on this floor, a gentleman named Dick Armey, a leader of the anti-movement on this bill, said it would be ``a recipe for disaster.'' He was wrong. That bill created 23 million new jobs and we should vote----

Mr. ANDREWS. Finally, I heard one of our colleagues say this bill will create a socialist utopia. No, Mr. Speaker, it won't. It will create a decent society that every man, woman, and child in this society and this country so richly deserves. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have asked frequently tonight what kind of country are we. They've asked exactly the right question. Tomorrow when a person is denied a job because she has breast cancer or is charged higher premiums because he has asthma, what kind of country will we be? Tomorrow when a senior citizen has enough money in her checking account to pay the utility bill or her prescription bill but not both, what kind of country will we be? When a person who tonight is scrubbing floors or pumping gas or waiting on tables tomorrow tries to go to buy a health insurance policy for herself or her children, what kind of country will we be? For Social Security, we gave decency for seniors. In Medicare, we gave compassion for seniors. In the Civil Rights Act, we gave equality for all Americans. Tonight, we will give justice and decency. That's the kind of country that we will be.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of millions of individuals throughout our country who are working for small businesses which are in PEO arrangements. The clear objective of this legislation is to create incentives for health care coverage and not to provide disincentives. I would like to clarify that for purposes of the application of section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (Prohibition on Discrimination in Favor of Highly Compensated Individuals) and Internal Revenue Code section 45R (Credit for Employee Health Insurance Expenses of Small Businesses), to any health plans sponsored by a professional employer organization (PEO) or a PEO client organization, the rules would be applied to each client organization separately and eligibility for the small business tax credits would also apply to each client organization separately, and not at the PEO level.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I rise in very strong support of this bill. I commend Members on both sides for supporting it. I regret that the Member who just spoke has chosen to use this debate about honoring veterans of the Cold War era by mischaracterizing the bill before us tomorrow. I'd like to take a few minutes and specify those mischaracterizations. The gentleman said there will be Medicare cuts. There will be no cuts to benefits for any Medicare recipient. Yes, there'll be cuts from fraud, waste, and abuse under Medicare. Senator Coburn of the other body says a third of Medicare spending is fraud, waste, and abuse. The Heritage Foundation says at least 10 percent. This bill takes between 5 and 6 percent of that fraud, waste, and abuse. For the record, the gentleman made reference to veterans and TRICARE. Veterans Administration care, which this Congress under this majority has increased to the highest level of the history of the country, will not be affected in any way. I will challenge anyone on the minority side to show me one word in these bills that justifies a different conclusion, one. TRICARE will not be affected in any way, and I would offer a similar challenge. The gentleman said there will be massive tax increases. What he did not say is that tax increases to help pay for this bill are on families with an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, the top 3 or 4 percent in the country. He said it will cost American jobs and be a job killer. This is echoes of the words we heard in this Chamber in 1993, when Members of the other side said the Clinton economic plan would be a job killer. The former chairman of the House Budget Committee, our friend from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, said at that time that if the plan worked, he would become a Democrat. Well, he didn't become a Democrat, but the plan worked. It created 23 million new jobs after it was passed. He said there was a specious claim of deficit reduction. I'll say this to you. The gentleman said that some say the deficit will go up as a result of this. Well, around here, we don't rely upon hearsay from unsubstantiated sources. We rely upon the Congressional Budget Office, and here's what they say. They said the deficit will go down by $138 billion in the first 10 years, and over $1.2 trillion in the next 10. With all due respect, the men and women who served this country in the Cold War served honestly and always gave a fair accounting of what they do. When we hear these remarks on the floor, they are not an accurate representation of facts and they, frankly, do dishonor to this bill and this debate.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We've just heard another series of misrepresentations. We just heard the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office ``cooked the books.'' I, frankly, think that does a great disservice to the men and women on a nonpartisan basis who work for that budget office and give us their honest judgment. Apparently the minority doesn't like their honest judgment-- that the bill reduces the deficit. So rather than argue the facts, they attack the men and women, nonpartisan people, who wrote the report. I think that's just not fair. Cuts to Medicare: No Medicare beneficiary gets any cut. There's an increase in prescription drug coverage. There's an increase in preventive care where there's no copay. Having said that, I think there is fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare. Senator Coburn thinks that. The Heritage Foundation thinks that. The gentleman on the other side must think that because last spring when the Republicans put their alternative budget on the floor, it cut Medicare outlays by $100 billion more than this bill does. It was in excess of $600 billion. And I, frankly, think that that targeted some fraud, waste, and abuse, so to argue somehow that these are cuts is disingenuous and inaccurate. Then we come back to TRICARE. There are two issues with respect to TRICARE. The first is, which office or department regulates. It's very clear it is the Department of Defense, and it should be the Department of Defense, not any other department. Mr. Skelton's bill very wisely affirmed that. But I'm still waiting for someone on the other side to tell me what the other problem was of trying to fix TRICARE. I just don't know what it was. There's an assertion made that the bill hurts people on TRICARE, and I'm still waiting to hear what that was.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the example the gentleman used was a couple that bought a $30,000 house, sold it for $200,000, which means it's a $170,000 gain. The tax would be zero because the tax doesn't kick in until $250,000. Every Member is entitled to his own opinion but not his own set of facts. These assertions are false.