Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Dick and Mrs. Tommie Ridinger, residents of Woodbury, NJ for the past five decades. Dick and Tommie are 86 and 89 years old respectively, and have been married for the past 61 years. They met each other in Southern France while serving in the United States military during World War II. Mr. Ridinger was a second lieutenant and Mrs Ridinger was a nurse on the front lines in Marseilles, France. Mr. Ridinger is a short man, and when he was young he was self-conscious about his height. During combat in France, an enemy soldier fired a bullet at him. It skimmed off the top of his helmet, just barely missing his forehead. Never again has Mr. Ridinger complained about his height. At another point, Nazis attacked a house while Mr. Ridinger's platoon was inside. While seeking shelter inside a closet, he found a French book. The book contained a poem titled, in English, ``I Know Something Good About You.'' From that day forth, he embraced the teachings of the book and modeled his life philosophy after it. In Marseilles, France, Mrs. Ridinger aided wounded soldiers on the front lines back to health. When the war ended, Tommie returned home to New Jersey with Dick. Tommie was a nurse at Redbank and Oakview elementary schools for over 20 years. After the war, Mr. Ridinger served as a teacher, vice principal and a high school football coach at Paulsboro and Collingswood High Schools. His success led to his induction into the High School Coaches Hall of Fame in Canton, OH. Madam Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Ridinger have served their country in extraordinary ways. Assisting our country both in World War II and in their community for decades, they deserve tremendous recognition for their service. I congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Ridinger and wish them best of luck.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rock School for Dance Education of Philadelphia, PA. The Rock School helps its students succeed academically as well as artistically. For many years, the Rock School has helped prepare students both in the performing arts world and the educational world. Initially called the School of Pennsylvania Ballet, the Rock School changed its name in 1992 to become an independent institution. During this time, the school became one of the nation's top-five pre- professional training programs. Its reputation continues to grow as it attracts more international students while acquiring exceptional faculty and great successes from its alumni. The Rock School engages and enriches local communities through its comprehensive outreach programs. More than 10,000 inner city children and their families take part in the School's outreach program annually. The Rock School and its Rock Reach program create positive opportunities for inner city children to participate in productive, stimulating activities. Rock School serves the Philadelphia and Camden community by teaching dance lessons and making dance facilities accessible to local citizens. The Rock Reach program, directed by Sarah Cooper, brings dance to life for Philadelphia and Camden students. Dancers from the school perform at local schools, teach dance lessons, and open their faculties up to the local community In addition, the Rock School awards over $500,000 in academic scholarships annually. The scholarships are given to talented students who need financial assistance. Scholarship students attend a pre- professional dance training program while also giving outstanding college-preparatory classes. These students dedicate themselves to dance, and the discipline they learn while dancing carries on in everything they do for the rest of their lives. Madam Speaker, the Rock School for Dance Education instills a quality of thought and action that enriches its students' lives and the local community. I hope to see the school continue along this path of success for years to come. It is an honor to pay tribute to such a fine institution.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman and friend for yielding. The proposition before the House today I think is rather direct, and here's what it is. If the House is going to vote for automatic spending for a proposition that spends the taxpayers' money every year without a separate vote, then it must offset that spending either by raising more revenue or cutting other automatic spending. If the House is going to reduce taxes on people, if the House is going to say that we're going to ask less of the American people in a given tax, then we must either raise some other source of revenue or reduce some other automatic spending in order to pay for that. Now, I don't know why this is controversial in the sense that it seems logical if we're locking ourselves into higher spending or locking ourselves into lower revenue, whatever the purpose of that may be, that we should only borrow the money to do that under extraordinary circumstances. The Education Committee yesterday gave a good example of how this ought to work. A lot of Members of the House want higher Pell Grant college scholarships and less expensive student loans, and so we passed a bill yesterday that does that, but we paid for the bill by reducing spending that I believe is corporate welfare to the banking system. So here's what we did: we reduced that corporate welfare, increased Pell Grant scholarships, lowered the cost of student loans, and did some other things in education and had $10 billion left over to reduce the deficit. That's what pay-as-you-go yields. Rather than simply spending the money and borrowing to cover it, rather than simply reducing taxes and borrowing to cover it, it forces us to do what the sensible and rational thing is to do, and that's pay for it as you go. This is not a Republican or Democratic idea. It's a commonsense idea, and I think the Members should all vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague, the outstanding new Member from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady who is the Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. ANDREWS. The issue is not whether the country will have a missile defense; the issue is whether the country will have an effective missile defense. Ninety-nine percent of the threat comes from regional missiles, so this budget increases by about 50 percent the amount of money that we spend on effective regional defense systems. But let's talk about what we would do if the Pyongyang threat came true and a missile was fired from North Korea. Here is the first thing we would do: We would rely upon the ground-based systems in Alaska. We put nearly a billion dollars into improving those systems. The Secretary of Defense has testified that the 30 interceptors in place are plenty, that they are enough. We improve upon them, and we use that system. Second, we look to a system that we frankly think will work better because the testing has been more promising and more accurate, the SM- 3, Block 2A interceptors, funding for which is increased by 50 percent in this bill. The issue is not whether we have a missile defense; it is whether we have one that works. I will requote the Secretary of Defense: ``The security of the American people and the efficacy of the missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed, or research programs that are essentially sink holes for taxpayers' dollars.'' We would not invest in Civil War-era technology that doesn't work to defend our country. We would invest in the 21st-century technology that does work, and that is what we are doing. We should oppose this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman. I rise in opposition. Here's the concern that we have about this amendment. Let's say that we have a servicemember who is suspected of sharing sensitive information with another country or someone they shouldn't share it with, and those investigating the alleged offense enter into a confidentiality agreement not to share any information about the investigation because it would impair the investigation. As I read this amendment, within 2 weeks of entering that agreement it would have to be reported to the committees of the Congress substantial information about it. I don't see any protections in the amendment that would say that the disclosure of the agreement would have to be done in such a way so as not to impair the investigation. Look, there's a difference between transparency and redundancy. There's a difference between transparency and paralysis. We need to have transparency so we can do our constitutional job. But if we have paralysis, we impair the executive branch from doing its job. We share the goal of this amendment, but we reject the means, and we would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Richard E. Murray, FACHE. He has played an integral role in New Jersey's First District through his administration of multiple health care systems. Mr. Murray has demonstrated a history of compassion throughout the community and for this he deserves great praise. Mr. Murray has served as the President/Chief Executive Officer of Kennedy Memorial Health System since 1980. Kennedy Memorial Health System consists of three acute-care hospitals, multiple outpatient clinics and various wellness programs. Mr. Murray's leadership has led to many advances within the Kennedy Memorial Health System. Since 1998, Kennedy Memorial Hospital has opened a free-standing outpatient Dialysis Center, a Sleep Center, a 10-bed Ronald McDonald House Pediatric Unit, a Cancer Center and Outpatient Medical Imaging Center, an Emergency Department, a Center for Wound Healing, a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, a 40-bed Progressive Care Unit, a 12-bed Innovative Hospice Care Center, a Stroke Program, a Maternity Center, a PET/CT Center, a Family Health Services Center, a Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit, a Surgical Unit, and an Intensive Care Unit. Aside from the structural upgrades, Mr. Murray has overseen multiple projects that have improved the quality of care within the Kennedy Memorial Health System. These projects include the creation of an ``Invensivist Program'' to ensure the oversight of health care providers and patient safety, the purchase of the high-tech DaVinci Robot for use in minimally invasive surgical procedures, and the creation of programs for diabetes control and a smoke free environment at all facilities. Without the hard work and exceptional guidance provided by Mr. Murray, none of these things would have been possible. Mr. Murray has received multiple awards commemorating his service to the South Jersey community. In 2005, he received the New Jersey Hospital Association's Distinguished Service Award, presented annually to an individual with more than 15 years of service in health care who ``consistently demonstrates strength, integrity, professionalism and a relentless commitment to a hospital or health care system.'' In 2006, he was honored by March of Dimes for his positive influence and contribution to the community. In 2007, he was honored with the New Jersey Institute for Nursing EPIC Award, which honors exceptional individuals for their contributions to New Jersey communities and the advancement of health care for the profession of nursing. Madam Speaker, Mr. Murray's service to New Jersey's First Congressional District should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank Dick Murray for the exceptional guidance he has provided his staff, the community service he has provided to members of the community, and the lives that he has changed throughout New Jersey. I congratulate Mr. Murray and wish him the best of luck in the future.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to rise in support of this legislation, and to thank the many people who made this possible, beginning, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman's friendship and mentorship and leadership. Mr. Skelton is a gifted consensus builder and a great role model for many Members of this House, myself included. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for this opportunity. To my very dear friend, Mr. McHugh, whose expertise is matched by his good spiritedness and a sense of inclusiveness. The way that these two gentlemen work together, Mr. Speaker, is a model for how we ought to serve the public's problems, and I'm very grateful to serve with each of them. I want to thank my friend, Mike Conaway, from Texas, who is the ranking member of the special panel, who gave this effort a great deal of attention and diligence. And he and I, Mr. Speaker, know that our job is only about one-fifth done, and we look forward to proceeding in the weeks and months ahead. We want to extend our appreciation to each of the members of the special panel, Republican and Democrat, who came to the meetings, expressed their views. Each of them had a hand in shaping this legislation. Many of them offered amendments at the full committee markup that found its way into the legislation. As the chairman said, those of us who are elected have the privilege of standing out front in these efforts, but the truth of the matter is that the most diligent and skillful work is done by the staffs that serve us with such distinction. And I do want to join the chairman's comments and specifically thank Erin Conaton, who's the leader of the staff on the majority side. She has built a tremendous team and is a great resource to Members of this House. Paul Oostburg, who is an able counsel in every respect, guides us through the legal thicket. Andrew Hunter did a tremendous job on this. He was always available, always a great resource, a person of just great, great diligence. His counterpart on the minority side, Jenness Simler, we thank her for her equally effective and cheerful and resourceful efforts. And I especially want to thank from my office staff, Nat Bell, who gave this around-the-clock attention, mastered the details in a very short period of time, and did just a terrific job. Mr. Speaker, when the American people hear that nearly $300 billion has been run up in cost overruns on major weapons systems, they're justifiably outraged. When we're paying $300 billion more than we should be for major weapons systems, they understand that we're not doing right by the people who wear the uniform, and we're not doing right by them. As the chairman said, to understand the magnitude of this problem, if we had not squandered that $300 billion in cost overruns we would have had enough to pay the salaries of the troops, the health benefits of the troops and their families, for more than 2 years. That's how much money that is, and it was squandered. So, as a result of this effort, with the able leadership of Senators Levin and McCain on the other side, we are going to present to the President today, by this vote, a solution to that problem. And here is the essence of that solution. When the public asks how do we really know how much these programs are going to cost, how effective they are, and when they're going to be done, for the first time, those questions will be answered by independent, qualified, accountable officials in the Department of Defense. Independent and accountable to the President, to the Congress and to the general public. When people ask, you know, we've got a weapons system that doesn't appear to be working out very well in the early going. Its promise exceeded the early signs of its performance. For the first time, in that early stage, the weapons system will have to meet a rigid and severe burden before it can go on. And if the best judgment of the independent experts is it shouldn't go on, it won't, and we will not throw good money after bad. When people ask the question, a weapons system has far exceeded its projected cost and it's taking far longer than it should, why should it continue to go on, for the first time, this legislation will say, well, it shouldn't. And if there's a different decision made, if there's an exception given to this weapons system so it can go on, the weapons system will be watched like a hawk, every day, every dollar, every step of the way, to make sure that if a weapons system is not terminated after poor performance, that it gets right, gets right in a hurry and stays right. And finally, when people ask the question, whose interests are really being served in this process, are the decisionmakers really looking out for those who serve in the military of this country and use the systems? Are the interests of the taxpayers being looked after, or are there other interests at work? This legislation institutionalizes the rule that I think most of our decisionmakers in the Department of Defense have lived by as a matter of personal ethics; but it spreads that personal ethic into the law, and says, when you make decisions about protecting those who wear our uniform and spending our taxpayers money, you may serve only one master. Conflicts of interest will be rigidly monitored and prohibited as a result of this legislation. Our work is just beginning. By passing this legislation, we are putting in place a series of safeguards and checks so we can understand if it looks like a system has been overpromised and underperforming. It is our responsibility, once this system is in place, to learn from its lessons so that we can give those who wear the uniform of this country the best that they deserve, and pay for it with the price that the taxpayers deserve, with not a penny wasted. It has been an honor to serve with my friends and colleagues in this process. We are eager to see this bill become law. We would urge a ``yes'' vote from both Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank my friend from California and all the members of the Rules Committee for their cooperation in bringing this conference report to the floor. We will later speak about the merits substantively on this legislation, but I do think my friend from California's remarks merit a comment because I think this is a victory for the institution as well. This is an institutional process that benefits us as an institution. There was a panel created by Chairman Skelton and Mr. McHugh that Mr. Conaway and I were fortunate enough to lead that helped generate this legislation. We had open hearings. It was followed by two full committee hearings that touched on the subject, followed by an open, full committee markup in the Armed Services Committee, followed by an opportunity on the floor under the suspension rules because it was not controversial for us to go forward, followed by very diligent work in the conference committee, for which we'd like to thank from the other body Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and their colleagues, followed by this floor debate. The media dwell on our situations where we disagree with each other, and disagreement is healthy in democracy. It's very important for us to highlight times when we agree with each other, when the process works as it should. This is one of those times, and I would like to thank and congratulate all Members of both bodies, particularly the Rules Committee, for facilitating this success here today. Thank you.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to introduce the ``Prosthetic and Custom Orthotic Parity Act of 2009 (PCOPA).'' At a time when health care costs are rising by about 7 percent annually, the financial hardship on those in need of prosthetic and custom orthotic devices is devastating. Yet, by expanding coverage for prosthetic and custom orthotic devices so that it is on par with other types of essential care, not only will provide amputees with proper treatment, which will allow them to experience a better quality of life, but save our health care system money in the long-term. That is, prosthetic and orthotic devices often dramatically decrease secondary health problems for those in need of such a device. The Prosthetic and Custom Orthotic Parity Act would address the significant health insurance inequity that amputees in our society currently face by requiring insurance companies that offer prosthetic and custom orthotic services to provide the same level of coverage as they do for medical and surgical services. Specifically PCOPA would provide coverage of prosthetic and custom orthotic devices, as well as their repair and replacement, under the same terms and conditions applicable to the other medical and surgical benefits provided under the health insurance policy. Currently, eleven states have addressed this problem and have enacted prosthetic and/or custom orthotic ``parity'' legislation. Furthermore, prosthetic and/or custom orthotic parity legislation has been introduced and is being actively considered in thirty other states. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation that will help put an end to the inequity many Americans who have lost a limb by way of a tragic event as well as those living with cerebral palsy and alike, experience when denied coverage by their insurance company.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment is 8 years too late. If the minority wants to be sure there's a trigger before you can do something, where was the trigger before they enacted the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country? Where was the trigger before they enacted the disastrous Medicare part D program and plunged us further in deficit? And where was the trigger before they poured over $1 trillion into a mismanaged war in Iraq? This amendment is 8 years too late. Vote it down.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I'd like to thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding. I rise in support of the legislation. This is really more than just a bill about modernization and repair of schools. It's a bill that helps address a number of the chronic and substantial problems that face our country. One is unemployment. This bill will create jobs for workers who will go about the process of fixing these schools and repairing them. Second, the bill creates a model for the construction and renovation of facilities that will save energy, that will reduce our carbon footprint, reduce pollution, and make our country greener. Third, this bill will help local education agencies--schools--by freeing up dollars they would otherwise have to spend on repairs, making those dollars available for the programs that educate the young people who attend those schools. This is a bill that is not simply about the very desirable work of installing insulation or energy efficient windows or green technology. It's really about addressing in an important way our unemployment problem, our energy problem, and our education indication problem, and we are giving students a better environment in which to learn. I'm hopeful that this legislation will provide a benchmark against which future efforts can be measured. It makes great sense. It's something that should achieve support on both sides of the aisle. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the author of the amendment for yielding. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee, we would urge support of the amendment. Not only does this amendment do a lot of good for children and teachers, it does a lot of good for the health care system. Seventy-five percent of health care expenditures in this country, as I'm sure the gentleman knows, are attributable to chronic illness. Four chronic illnesses are accountable for 80 percent of that 75 percent. Among them is asthma. So by this very well-crafted amendment, not only is the gentleman improving conditions within schools, but he is making a good first start toward dealing with the problem of the health care cost explosion here in our country. We commend a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the author of the amendment for yielding. On behalf of the committee, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, my friend from California suggested that these funds should go to academic improvement. I think he implied that these do not. The research is rather ample. The children who are fit and healthy, do better in the classroom than those who do not. There's a connection between academic performance and fitness. The second point that I would make mirrors the one we made with reference to the previous amendment. Of the four chronic illnesses that drive the explosion of health care costs in this country, in addition to asthma, another is diabetes and the obesity that often comes with it, childhood obesity in particular. So in addition to the academic dividends that I think the gentleman's amendment produces, it also produces the dividend of yet another down payment on control of the health care cost explosion. We believe that the amendment is entirely suitable. It will be used in an innovative way that will provide national models for school districts around the country. We'd urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. The committee supports this bill. The bill requires the money be spent for academic purposes. I don't know really how you teach biology effectively without giving children the chance to interact with plant life. I think it just makes an awful lot of sense to have that kind of lab. We support the bill and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author for yielding and would urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. With all due respect, the amendment does not require simply a keeping of lists of where the money is spent. It requires an analysis of the effectiveness of the expenditure of the money, it requires an analysis of whether all children are getting proportionately equal access to the funds that are expended, and it gives the Congress the basis, the factual basis, to make further decisions about whether to expand, eliminate or modify such programs in the future. The minority protest is concerned about the ever-growing size of government. The minority knows a lot about growing the size of government. That is what they did for 8 years when they doubled the national debt. That is what they did for 8 years when they inherited the largest surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit in American history. One of the ways to turn about deficit financing is economic growth. We believe this bill will do that. We urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. On behalf of the committee, we want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, there are some misconceptions about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. One of the misconceptions is that the devastation people felt in New Orleans was pretty much the sole extent of that. The gentleman, I think, has done the institution a great service by pointing out that the disaster was very widespread. There is still an urgent need in his area and other areas throughout the region, and as we invest funds in renovation and improvement of schools, I would think that a very high priority should go to the types of communities that are covered by this amendment. So the committee believes that this amendment is very well considered, it will do a great service, it's an accurate reflection of priorities, and we wish to commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. As a new Member, I think he has come up with a creative solution. We enthusiastically support the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there is an understandable frustration and cynicism in our country about our political system. There are people who believe that all we do is argue, that the two parties never agree on anything. And when we do agree on something, it's on something symbolic or inconsequential. I think beyond the value of the substance of this legislation is the value of showing how those caricatures of the American political process are not always true. This has been a very substantive and very significant process, and it was led by outstanding bipartisan leadership from Mr. Skelton, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who had the foresight to put together this panel and empower us with the staff, resources, and time to do the job well; and Mr. McHugh, who loaned both his expertise and his personal credibility to this effort, both of which are in significant supply. I would also like to thank Mr. Conaway from Texas, the ranking member of the panel, for his outstanding contributions; each member of the panel, both Republican and Democratic, for their diligence in this effort; and most assuredly, the hardworking staff people who made the product possible: Erin Conaton and Andrew Hunter, Jenness Simler, Nat Bell from my office. We appreciate very much their efforts and many others. You have heard the chairman and others say earlier that the Government Accountability Office has identified $296 billion in cost overruns, that's just overruns, in major weapons systems. And as the chairman said, had we not incurred these overruns, that's enough money to pay for the salaries of the troops and the health benefits for the troops and their families for nearly 2\1/2\ years. That's the opportunity cost for the problem that we are facing today. The House is encouraged to pass this bill because we believe it faces that problem by implementing four very important changes. The first has to do with independence. The people who will be doing cost estimates, engineering and conceptual scientific evaluations, and scheduling analyses will not be people vested in the success of the weapons system. They will be people vested in protection of the taxpayer dollar and providing the very best value for those who wear the uniform. The second principle is looking very critically at the development of these weapons systems as early as possible in the process. By the time 10 percent of the money is spent on these weapons systems, 70 percent of the money is obligated. That is to say, on or before the time that we decide to build or not build a weapons system, we are already far into the process, whereby a political constituency builds up, hundreds of thousands of workers, thousands of contractors, political constituencies around the country, who understandably advocate for these programs as if they were a public works project. Well, they are not. The idea behind these programs is to provide the very best tools to those who wear the uniform of this country at the appropriate price for the taxpayer. By getting involved earlier in the process, we make it far more likely that when a bad judgment has been made, when we set off on the wrong course, that course can be reversed or terminated, as it should be. The third principle in this bill is to give intensive attention, intensive care, to weapons systems that have been permitted to go forward even though they have not yet met all of the criteria to go forward. If there is a true national security reason that those weapons systems should go forward beyond that milestone, it is very important that they be looked at carefully and on an ongoing basis. That is what this bill provides. And in those, unfortunately, many instances where the programs far exceed the cost that's originally estimated, by 25 percent, by 50 percent, this legislation says that if the programs are not terminated, and if they are not terminated because there is a strong national security reason not to terminate them or a strong economic reason not to terminate them, they must be watched with great intensive attention.