Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. This debate really is very timely because the number one issue on the minds of the American people is the economic crisis, and although we use the language of the budget, what we are really talking about here is whether to adopt or not adopt a plan to fix the economic crisis facing the country. Literally, the motion that we're debating right now is whether to try to reach an agreement with the Senate about that plan, and we'll take a vote on whether to go forward or not. I hope everybody votes to go forward with the process. But I assume, Mr. Speaker, the minority's not really debating the process; they're debating the substance, and that's good and that's welcome. I think for us to fix this economic crisis we need to do three things, and the President has stepped forward to try to do these three things. The first is to get the economy kick-started in the short run. The President proposed legislation that would put construction workers back to work, that would help first-time homebuyers with their down payment for a new home, that would let people deduct the sales tax when they buy a car or truck, that would stop the hemorrhaging of layoffs from schools around the country by a significant increase in Federal aid to schools. And we passed that. And it's about 2 months old, and we're hoping that it will work. The second leg of recovery is to stop the meltdown of the financial system. You know, the two parties came together in the fall and passed legislation that was very controversial, very easy to vote against, to try to rescue the financial system and the banking system, not for the benefit of the shareholders of banks, but for the benefit of borrowers and depositors and all of us who depend upon the banking system. And the new Secretary of the Treasury has gone forward with a different version of how to implement that plan, and it's playing out in the marketplace, and we're hoping that that plan will be successful. The third piece of the recovery plan is a long-term plan to deal with the long-term problems of the country. The President proposed a way to deal with the problem of borrowing too much money to run the country, and we passed in the House a budget that cuts the deficit by two-thirds and we hope will stimulate the economic growth that will pay down the debt as we did in the 1990s. The President proposed a plan that would start us toward fixing our health care system, to control costs for businesses and families, so that the metastasizing growth of health care costs is reduced and subdued, and that's included in this budget. The President has proposed a plan to deal with our energy dependency upon imported foreign oil; and although the specifics of that are not included in this budget, this House, at the appropriate time, will take up that debate and will either pass it or not. And, finally, the President talked about improving the job skills of our workers so we are more competitive in global economic competition with some major reforms in the way we pay for getting a college or higher education. Now, you can disagree with the way the President went about these objectives. But I think what you can't do is propose essentially nothing as an alternative. And I know there were alternatives on the floor during the budget debate. But the reality is the minority has kind of set itself up here to tell us what it's against, and I respect that. We're for something very different. We're for a plan that reduces the deficit by two-thirds. We're for a plan that stops the hemorrhaging from our pocketbooks in America's health care system. We want to debate and eventually adopt a plan that will terminate our addiction to imported oil. We're for a plan that raises the skills and aspirations of every worker, every man, woman and child in this country. That is what we are for. And we want to go forward with the other body and with the President and, hopefully, with the other party in a way that will implement a plan that will make this economy recover. So that's what we're talking about today: Should we or should we not go forward with a plan that will help the economy recover? We've laid out our ideas. We believe in them. We think the track record shows that they work. There really are two competing sets of ideas about how to fix the economy. The minority believes that massive reductions in taxes for the wealthiest Americans and deregulation of the economy will produce prosperity for all. We don't believe that. We think that lower deficits, investment in education and health care, infrastructure, sensible regulation of the marketplace will produce prosperity for all. There's a record, Mr. Speaker. Their method, tried in the last 8 years, has, frankly, led us to the economic catastrophe we're experiencing today. Our method, by and large, tried in the 1990s, led to a very different result. For every one job----

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Saxton for his service to the United States House of Representatives. I was pleased to have the opportunity to previously honor Mr. Saxton at a dinner in Cherry Hill on March 15, 2009. Since his time as an elementary school teacher and a small business owner, Representative Saxton has worked tirelessly to help the people of New Jersey. He served in the New Jersey General Assembly and the New Jersey Senate. He served the State of New Jersey in the House of Representatives for more than twenty-three years. He became the Ranking Member of the Armed Services and Resources Committee. He has been instrumental in efforts to keep military bases in New Jersey, to stop beach erosion, and to support New Jersey hospitals. Madam Speaker, Jim Saxton has a proud record of service to the State of New Jersey and I am proud to call him my friend. I congratulate Mr. Saxton for all his accomplishments and wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Master Sergeant Robert Morrell of Marine Wing Support Squadron 472 of Willow Grove, PA for his service to the Marine Corps and to the U.S. Postal Service. At fifty-eight years old, he is preparing to deploy to Iraq. Master Sergeant Morrell joined the Marine Corps in 1969 and spent four years on active duty. He earned the Vietnam Service Medal for his service in the South China Sea. He was also deployed in the Mediterranean. Master Sergeant Morrell became a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service in 1979. He now serves as the financial secretary of The National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 540 Camden NJ Merged. He retired from the postal service on August 31, 2007. Madam Speaker, Master Sergeant Morrell rejoined the Marine Corps Reserves in 1990. During his two Marine Corps careers he has earned a Selected Marine Corps Reserve medal, a Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Marine Corps Good Conduct medal, and the National Defense Service medal. In 2007, he was promoted to Master Sergeant in the Marine Corps. When his retirement date from the Marine Corps loomed close, Master Sergeant Morrell chose instead to continue with his unit. He is now getting ready to serve his country in Iraq, just as he served in Vietnam. He is an excellent example for all Americans. I congratulate Mr. Morrell on his tremendous dedication to this country and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act of 2009, CIAPA, which would restore the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's, ERISA, prohibition on self-interested investment advisers providing advice to employer-sponsored retirement accounts; thereby, safeguarding the retirement savings of millions of hardworking Americans. On the eve of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the Bush administration attempted to finalize a regulation concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, that raised substantial questions of law and policy. Essentially, the final rule issued would have allowed conflicted financial advice to workers with regard to their 401(k) and other types of defined contribution plans. Fortunately, thanks to letters of opposition from Chairman Miller and me, as well as several other Members of Congress, as well as consumer advocacy groups and several financial industry insiders who serve in the interest of investors, the Obama administration has delayed the effective date of the regulation for further examination of its intent. I believe in the value of providing American workers with access to investment advice, so long as the advice is independent and free from conflict--serving in the interest of the worker, rather than the interest of the financial advisor. During a time where American workers have already lost $2 trillion in assets due to last year's market downturn, exposing their hard-earned retirement savings to greater risk by allowing advisers to offer them conflicted advice is irresponsible and imprudent. During consideration of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, many of my colleagues were well intended with respect to ensuring that if workers were to receive investment advice with respect to their retirement savings, it would be independent. Despite their good intentions, the process of the bill's consideration created a statutory loophole; at the end of the regulatory process, conflicted advice could be offered to workers. In lieu of exposing workers to conflicted investment advice, CIAPA would permit independent investment advisers to provide advice to workers regarding their retirement goals. Furthermore, it would maintain the allowance of the computer model arrangement so long as an independent expert or agency certifies the model. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act of 2009.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Donald Norcross, who was the recipient of the inaugural Camden County Civic Leadership and Responsibility Award on April 2, 2009. Mr. Norcross received this award in recognition of his tireless efforts championing the causes of local laborers and their families, ensuring that the needs of local social service organizations and their clients are met, and spearheading efforts toward the renewal of the City of Camden. While a student at Camden County College, Mr. Norcross began his career as an apprentice electrician. Today he is the president of the Southern New Jersey AFL-CIO Central Labor Council, vice president of the Southern New Jersey Building Trades Council, and assistant business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 351. Madam Speaker, Mr. Norcross has also worked to make his community better through his civic endeavors. For more than ten years he has served as a member of the executive board of the United Way of Camden County. He founded the Home Port Alliance, a group of South Jersey veterans, activists and elected officials. This group successfully worked to bring the retired USS New Jersey, the most decorated battleship in United States history, to the Camden waterfront. This proud ship now serves as a monument to the brave sailors who served on her during her long and distinguished career as well as an exciting attraction that contributes to the economic development of Southern New Jersey. In light of these considerable achievements, it is fitting that Mr. Norcross was honored with the inaugural Camden County Civic Leadership and Responsibility Award. He is an excellent example for all Camden County College graduates and students. I congratulate Mr. Norcross for receiving the award and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring attention to a letter sent by John M. Reilly, of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, to Minority Leader John Boehner. During the debate on the FY10 Budget Resolution, the cost of a cap and trade program became a major point of contention. Mr. Reilly, in this letter, clearly explains the methodology used by MIT to determine the approximate cost to an average family of a cap and trade proposal. As the letter makes evident, the actual cost to the average American family will likely be far less than estimated by our friends on the other side of aisle. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, April 1, 2009. Representative John Boehner (R-OH), Office of the House Republican Leader, Washington, DC. It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No. 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340. Since the issue of legislation to control greenhouse gases is now under consideration, I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding created by this press release and to avoid further confusion. Why is this amount so different? As far as I can tell the $3,000+ is based on the potential auction revenue the government could collect by auctioning the allowances over the period through 2050 where a simple average over all years from 2015 to 2050 was computed. The tax revenue collected through such an auction, the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the average impact on a household are very different concepts. Thus, there are several things wrong with this calculation. First, the auction revenue is determined by the CO2 price and how many allowances are issued-- allowances tell us how many tons of CO2 (or more broadly greenhouse gases) will continue to be emitted. The cost of reducing emissions depends on how much emissions are reduced not on how much continues to be emitted. Second, the CO2 price reflects the cost of the last ton of emissions reduced but there are many options that cost much less than avoiding the last ton and so using the CO2 price multiplied by the number of tons (either reduced or emitted) is also wrong. Third, the average cost to a household depends on how allowances or the allowance revenues are distributed. Fourth, the costs are borne over time and it is wrong to produce a simple average of such costs as that does not take account of the time value of money. We assumed in the analysis we did that the revenue is returned to households. From data in the report we can calculate the economic cost in each year (percentage loss times the base welfare level in each year), and divide this by the U.S. population, and then multiply this amount by four to estimate the cost for a representative family of four. We further apply an economic discount rate of 4 percent to get the Net Present Value (NPV) cost in each year in the future. Doing this we find that the NPV cost per family of four starts at about $75 in 2015, rises to nearly $510 by 2025, and then falls to $205 by 2050. We can calculate the average annual NPV cost per family by summing over all years and dividing by the number of years, and this shows the average annual net present value cost to be about $340--only a part of which would be actual energy bill increases. This $340 includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost of measures to reduce energy use such as adding insulation to homes, the higher price of goods that are produced using energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital. The cost per household will vary from our hypothetical average family of four depending on the household's circumstances. Those households with large heating and cooling bills because of the climate in which they live or who drive more than average will face higher costs. Those with smaller homes who live in benign climates will have lower costs. The higher energy prices encourage reductions in energy use by increasing the payback on improvements in energy efficiency, and through such investments households can avoid paying more for energy. Jobs and wages in fossil fuel industries are likely to decline but job opportunities will increase in industries that produce alternative energy sources or that provide ways to save energy. While the $340 average annual cost we estimate for a family is just one tenth of the $3000+ cited in the misleading press release, Congress should address the costs of this transition for middle and lower income families while developing Cap- and-Trade legislation. In another paper (Report 160, Analysis of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Tax Proposals) we make some calculations on the burdens of a GHG tax on families at different income levels. Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households. Climate change poses severe risks for the U.S. and the world. It will take efforts in the U.S. and abroad to reduce emissions substantially to avoid the most serious risks of climate change. One of the perplexing aspects of the problem is that the solution involves using cleaner energy sources that are more costly then conventional fossil fuels. And the higher energy prices needed to cover the higher costs will fall disproportionately on the poorer members of society in the U.S. and in the world. However, the less wealthy members of our economy also stand to suffer most from climate change--whether it is through the risks of increased food prices if climate change disrupts crops, the lack of access to air conditioning under extreme heat, or vulnerability to other extreme weather and storm events such as hurricanes which may increase with climate change. Many of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household. Concern about the cost impacts on middle and low income families needs to be focused on making sure allowance or tax revenue is used to offset cost impacts on these households rather than as an excuse for not proceeding with measures that would help avert dangerous climate change. Sincerely, John M. Reilly.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. My friend from California continually references this energy tax increase. He's very astute on the rules, Madam Speaker, and he knows that the way you can set the predicate to raise revenue in a budget resolution is by a reconciliation instruction. Would the gentleman care to tell us where the reconciliation instruction is to raise money for this cap-and-tax that he keeps talking about?

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his statement. It is not in place. Therefore, there's no tax in this budget.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, has the gentleman read the majority budget resolution? If the gentleman would read it, he would see that the deficit is two-thirds at the end of the 5-year cycle.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, if I may.

Mr. ANDREWS. Just one moment. I just want to finish this point. I would love to hear from you. The other side wants nostalgia. If we were to have a third George Bush term, their alternative is what it would look like; make permanent the tax breaks for the wealthiest, reduce what we spend on education, nutrition, environment, energy and health care, and hope for the best. This is a choice between the future of promise and the failure of the past. And if my friend would like to ask me about the failure of the past, he can certainly do that.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I think someone who sells real estate or teaches school for a living must listen to this budget debate and be befuddled by what he or she is hearing. Thankfully, today there will be a chance for that citizen to hear a wide range of alternatives, a wide range of views as to how we should fix the country's economic problems. For that, I commend the Rules Committee under Ms. Slaughter's and Mr. McGovern's leadership, and I hope the minority will vote for the procedure that lets that wide range of views be heard. But that person who teaches school or sells real estate has heard consistently from the minority that their household will get a $3,000- a-year tax increase. That isn't so. The fact of the matter is that the hypothetical, mythical energy tax that the minority continuously refers to is not in the budget. If there ever were to be such a tax, it would have to come to this floor for a separate vote, a separate debate and separate consideration. The minority habitually says that small businesses and families will have their taxes increase. The fact of the matter is there are instructions to pay for health care that would probably look to repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest 5 percent of people in this country, a platform the President ran on and was elected on. It is absolutely untrue that the 95 percent below that figure have any sort of tax increase. They don't. In fact, there is a $1.7 trillion tax reduction for the bottom 95 percent of people in this country, for middle-class people. We hear that small businesses are going to have their taxes increase. That is not true. Ninety-eight percent of the small businesses in this country file tax returns lower than the adjusted gross income that would be affected by the provisions that would help pay for the health care bill. We hear habitually about deficit and debt, and those on the minority side gnash their teeth and weep that the debt, according to them, will be doubled in 5 years. They know all about that, because that is exactly what they just did. They just doubled the national debt in the last 5 years under their watch.

Mr. ANDREWS. The fact of the matter is that this plan reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the next 5 years. Now I do agree with my friend from California that this is about choice, this is about how to handle our economic distress. President Obama came to office and said he would do three things. He said he would pass a bill to stimulate the economy by helping people buy houses, buy cars, get construction workers back to work and keep people working and teaching in our schools. He did it. He then said his administration would lay out a plan to stabilize the collapsing banking system. Such a plan was laid out at the beginning of last week. And although it is far too early to measure its results, early signs are good. And then he said he would lay out a long-term plan for economic development, jobs and growth that would address the fundamental, underlying problems of this country. And that is what we are doing today. Stop living on borrowed money; he is cutting the deficit by two- thirds. Make us free from imported energy; he sets out a path to do so that Congress will either follow or not. Deal with health care reform; he sets out a path to do so that we will deal with through reconciliation instructions, whether you vote for it or not. And finally, he sets forth a path to broaden access to education and improve its quality.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the underlying budget resolution that adversely affects the marriage penalty situation for any middle-class person. Again, 95 percent of families in this country get a tax cut, not a tax increase. It's just not so.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. It continues the enormously successful policy of deregulation that has brought us to the brink of financial disaster. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. For every one job this approach has created, our approach has created 108. We shouldn't go back to a sequel for a movie that was so bad to begin with.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, I tell you what, when you get your time, I'll answer your question. It would privatize Social Security. It would squeeze money out of the Social Security system.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, if you ever wonder what a third Bush term would look like, this is it. This is a budget plan that maintains the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, pays for it by giving people 55 and under a voucher to go fend for themselves in the insurance market instead of Medicare, which I think would pay maybe 80 percent of what it costs.

Mr. ANDREWS. I only have 1 minute. If you give me some of your time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I would object to that.

Mr. ANDREWS. The budget doesn't repeal any rebate whatsoever. What it does is set up a process where, if the Congress wants to deal with cap- and-trade, it will evaluate all the different ways the money could be a raised, the ways rebates could be paid, and whatnot. I'm just very troubled that the minority continues to rely, apparently, on a study that the author claims is just being blatantly misrepresented.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, this argument we've heard ad nauseam here that there's $3,100 per home rests on two arguments. The first is that there is an instruction to raise the revenue in the budget. Mr. Dreier admitted on the floor earlier that's not the case. Then, the $3,100 rests upon this MIT study--and the author of the study has now told us that's a misrepresentation. I think a lot of the other claims that the minority makes about the budget are equally invalid.

Mr. ANDREWS. If I can just ask for 30 more seconds.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I believe that's true. But I would like you to answer the fundamental question: Is that the study on which you're relying?