Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana just said that we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. He is right. So this budget does not repeat those mistakes. It does not give massive tax reductions to the wealthiest people in the country and hope they do the right thing with the money. It does not ignore the health care, education and energy needs of our country for the long term and weaken our global position. Finally, it does not further the path of deregulation of our markets, our financial system, which has led to the cataclysmic meltdown of the U.S. economy in recent weeks and months. No, this does not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is a new direction. It is a new opportunity. It is a new strategy that we believe will speak to the needs of the unemployed American, the American without health insurance, all of us who pay rising utility bills, and each of us who wants the finest quality education for our children. This is a change. It is what the people asked for in November, and, with the help of the majority, it is what we will deliver today.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding and congratulate him and thank him for his tremendous leadership in this effort. The minority whip said that the House faces a choice between two very distinctive strategies. He is absolutely right. The strategy that the minority would like to pursue is a strategy that has been tried and has failed. It has led us to the peril that we face today. The strategy that we would initiate is a return to principles that have succeeded. Following their strategy, for every one job their strategy has created, we have created 108. For every $1 of economic growth their strategy has created, ours has created $1.69. The middle-class family that began this decade saw its purchasing power decrease by $500 a year by the time the last President left office. During the 1990s, that same family saw its purchasing power increase by $5,000. The choice before the country is which strategy works. Ours does. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the question before the Congress and before the country is how do we get the economy to recover, how do we put people back to work and see their retirement savings grow again, their home equity rise again. One of the ways that needs to be done is to stop our addiction to imported foreign oil, and this budget takes an important step forward. It's important to understand what the budget does and does not do. What the budget does not do is make a judgment on the so-called cap- and-trade proposals. At another time, on another piece of legislation, the House will debate and decide what to do about that. What the budget does, however, is to increase by about 10 percent our investment in ridding ourselves of that addiction to imported oil. What we say is building on the work in the economic recovery law, let's put Americans back to work building a smart grid that can take wind energy and other energy and spread it throughout our system. Let's put Americans to work building a hydrogen plant, solar farms, other forms of clean renewable energy and create green collar jobs. Let's retrofit existing buildings so they have a smaller carbon footprint and costs the owners and operators less to do. This budget represents the most significant investment in green technology and green jobs in the history of the country, and it does so because we recognize that an important part of the answer to the question of how to restore prosperity and create jobs for our constituents is to invest in clean energy and green collar jobs. So whether it is tax credits, loans, or other investments, this budget takes us a very long way towards that very laudable goal. A ``yes'' vote for this budget is a ``yes'' vote for a new strategy that will liberate us from the addiction of imported oil and grow jobs in our families and our communities. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, the House deserves an accurate record before it renders judgment on this budget. It's important that we know that accurate record. We've heard that the budget imposes ``the largest energy tax in history.'' That is not so. The budget does not refer to cap-and-trade. It doesn't impose energy taxes on families the way that it was described. It simply isn't the case. We've heard that the budget ``nationalizes health care.'' The fact of the matter is that the budget sets up a process where this House will consider and debate legislation that will help to reduce costs for covered Americans and extend insurance to Americans who do not have coverage. There is nothing about nationalization of health care. We've heard consistently that this has a significant tax increase on small businesses. The fact of the matter is that any tax change that is contemplated in the health care plan will be limited to a repeal of the tax breaks the prior administration gave the wealthiest Americans. The record shows that 98 percent of small business filers will not be included in any such consideration. Finally, we hear that the budget doubles the deficit, one of the Members on the other side said. Not so. This budget reduces the deficit by two-thirds, but more importantly and profoundly, it puts us back on a path to the economic growth and prosperity which preceded the prior administration.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I would say to my friend from California that the Democratic majority with a Democratic President will demonstrate to the gentleman what we believe in and will enact it. With respect to the issue of cap-and-trade, the two sections that are referenced in the budget conference report say this: If the Congress enacts cap-and-trade legislation, then the budget numbers will be adjusted to reflect that being enacted. If this conference report passes, there will be no limit on carbon enacted. There will be no revenues raised to enforce that limit. It simply says that if the Congress in subsequent consideration does that, then, in fact, the budget would be adjusted. The minority has consistently frankly used a number of tax increase per household that the authors of the study on which they rely have said was a misrepresentation.

Mr. ANDREWS. That is not what I said. I said that the conference report does not enact cap-and-trade.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend. So my friend is acknowledging, is he not, that Members who wish to read the budget will have over tonight to do that before there is a vote tomorrow, correct?

Mr. ANDREWS. The debate is starting today and concluding tomorrow. The conclusion of debate will be tomorrow.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding. First, Madam Speaker, the consistent reference to the so-called ``cap-and-trade policy'' from the other side is not in the budget. That will be debated another day. It is not here. My friend from California talks about the number of months that there was job growth in the prior administration. Madam Speaker, I think most Americans are worried about the number of months they've been out of work and about the number of months until their unemployment benefits expire, and this budget is a part of addressing that concern. Shortly after taking office, this President signed an economic stimulus law, the benefits of which are now being seen in communities around the United States as construction workers go to work, as first- time home buyers get help with their down payments, hopefully as more cars and trucks are sold, as people can deduct their sales tax, as schools are given more opportunities not to lay off teachers, lunch aides and other personnel. The President also put forth a long-term economic proposal that we're addressing today in this budget. It's not the number of months that President Bush did this or that. It's other questions about how many months people have been without health insurance. This budget puts us on a track to finally deal with that problem and to get health care costs under control for all Americans and to get coverage for the 47 million who do not have it. This budget, in a very robust way, talks about helping to pay for college education. It will make the largest investment in college and technical training in the Nation's history as a result of what is in this budget. The gentleman is concerned about the process by which this is being done. We're concerned about the process by which it wasn't done in the previous 8 years. Now, having said that, if anyone wants to read the budget, it's on the Internet. Read it. If someone is concerned about the lack of alternatives from the minority, there were dozens of amendments when the committee worked on this budget. Mr. McGovern and I were part of that. There were two full alternatives from the minority that were debated on the floor a couple of weeks ago when the minority had a chance to set forth its views, and those views were considered. So we think there is a problem with the timing of these plans. We think the American public shouldn't have to wait 8 years for someone to finally address health care and education and the budget deficit, which is cut by two-thirds under this budget. The process is right. The plan is right. The right thing to do is to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Is the gentleman aware of the fact that the vote on this is tomorrow?

Mr. ANDREWS. How many of the gentleman's Members from his side are here to deliberate and debate this right now, out of curiosity?

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I want to clearly explain the sources of the data I have used to compare the strength of the economy during President Clinton's time in office as compared to the economy during the Bush administration. During the Bush administration, an average of 2,000 private sector jobs were created per month. For purposes of comparison, 217,000 private sector jobs were created per month under President Clinton. These statistics are drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics data. To provide further evidence for the relative success of Presidents Clinton and Bush, it is helpful to look at economic growth during their Presidencies. President Clinton created $1.68 in economic growth for every dollar of economic growth created under the Bush administration. These numbers are taken directly from research by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Finally, and perhaps most convincing, is the stark difference between the change in purchasing power, for the median household, between the Clinton and the Bush years. Under President Bush, the median household had $500 less purchasing power as of 2007 as compared to the beginning of Bush's Presidency. Under President Clinton the purchasing power of the median household rose by over $5,000. These numbers were drawn from data compiled by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. My friends on the other side of the aisle may prefer to ignore these comparisons; however, I am of the opinion that we must learn from our past to better prepare for the future. As we work to create jobs and get the economy back on track, it is useful to keep in mind the lessons of the past two decades.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I have only 90 seconds.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman for yielding. My neighbor from New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, asked the source of the statistics I used. Here is the answer: One job for every 108 is the source of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the Bush administration, the average number of private- sector jobs created per month was 2,000 per month. Under our strategy, it was 217,000 jobs per month. The economic growth figure is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It is derived by looking at the average rate of GDP growth during the 1990s and during the sunny years of the last 8 years we've just endured. The source of the purchasing power of middle class families is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of the Census is derived this way.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it is also the case that every single Republican voted against the plan that created that economic growth. The source of the median family income is the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of the Census is derived by looking at the real family income of the median American family from when the prior President took office to when he left and a similar comparison in the 1990s. We'll put it in the Record. Those are the facts. They're very uncomfortable for the minority, but they speak for themselves.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield? I would be happy to supply that answer.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Several million Americans have lost their jobs since the fall. We are saying let's get to work to try to fix that problem. The minority is saying no, not now, not this way. Wages have gone up only one-third as fast as health care costs have gone up for the typical American family in the last decade or so. And we are saying let's get to work together to fix that problem and, in the process, let's say to people who are working in convenience stores and gas stations and mowing lawns and store clerks, that they have to have health insurance too for themselves and their children. We are saying let's get to work on that. The minority is saying no, not now, not this way. We all suffered the ravages of $4-a-gallon gasoline last summer. It will probably go back up again because we are so addicted to imported energy from overseas. We're saying let's get to work on solving that problem, on building windmills and hydrogen engines and solar farms and other ideas. The minority is saying no, not now, not this way. There are American families whose sons or daughters are going to come home from school today and receive the thick envelope that says they got into the college they've always wanted to go to. And the parents are going to have to say no, not now, not this way because we can't afford the cost of a college education. We say let's get to work on solving that problem by moving $94 billion away from corporate welfare to student financial aid. Let's get to work on that. The minority says no, not now, not this way. This is a choice between ``yes'' and ``no.'' It's a choice between optimism and pessimism. It's a choice between working on the country's problems and just watching them metastasize. We can do so much better. We should do it together. But we should do it. So I would urge a vote against this motion to instruct. I would urge that we work with the other body and get started on this budget and get started on solving these problems.