Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I want to ask my friend from Tennessee who just spoke, if she's still here, that when she makes reference to MIT analysis about the so-called cap-and-trade, first of all, as my friend from Wisconsin knows very well, the way that we raise revenue in a budget resolution is to direct reconciliation instructions. And I frankly think his interpretation of the Energy and Commerce instruction is incorrect. It's for health care. But I want to go back to what our friend from Tennessee just said about the MIT study, and I will ask unanimous consent at the appropriate time to enter this letter into the Record, a letter dated April 1 from Professor John Reilly, I believe is his name, who is the author of that study. I will read what he says. He said, ``It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 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.'' Is the gentlelady still on the floor? I would yield to my friend, the ranking member, to explain--is that the study on which you're relying?

Mr. ANDREWS

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

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, my very sincere and articulate friend from Wisconsin forgot a few facts. He forgot that during the watch of his party, for every $1 of debt they inherited, they left us with nearly $2. He neglected to mention that the budget before us cuts by two-thirds the deficit that we inherited from our friends on the other side. He neglected to mention the budget before us cuts by $1.5 trillion taxes on middle-income Americans who drive school buses or sell real estate. And he neglected to mention that under their method of job creation, for every one job they created under their way, we created 108 under our way of managing the economy. This is a very big debate and a very big choice between a failed status quo of the past and a progressive way to change our country in the future. That is why we are going to vote ``yes'' for this budget.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Chair, for 8 dreary years, we have heard what the other party could not do. No, they could not stop the hemorrhaging of dollars from our pockets to pay for health care. No, they could not bring quality health care to every American. No, they couldn't provide health care for hardworking people who stand behind cash registers or pump gas or work at a nursing home. No. No. No. We have turned a new leaf. There is a new opportunity to talk about what America can do. And this budget says what we can do together in health care. It says to those who have health care and like their coverage, they can keep it. It says to those who like the doctor or the hospital they go to, they can continue to do that. But it says to those Americans who work so hard every day but cannot have a health care card in their pocket when they take their child to a pediatrician that it is your time now, it is your turn now to have some attention from this Capital and from this government. And this budget facilitates and makes possible a plan where hardworking Americans can finally have access to affordable health care. The naysayers will say, no, it's too soon. No, it's too much. No, it's too grandiose. I don't think it's too soon. I think it's too late for a lot of people. I don't think it's too much. In some ways it's too little, and it certainly is time to stop the hemorrhaging of dollars from the pockets of our people, provide health care for hardworking people, and that is what this budget does.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman for yielding. Our friends often honor the memory of our late President Reagan, but they forget one thing that President Reagan said, that facts are stubborn things. I think I understand why, because they overlook the fact that this budget cuts taxes by $1.7 trillion for people who teach school or fight fires or who sell real estate for middle-class people. They overlook the fact that they inherited a situation where we're on track to retire the debt within a decade but they wound up doubling it from $3.4 trillion to $6.3 trillion under their watch. They ignore the fact that 95 percent of Americans get a tax cut under this budget, and their favorite constituents, a few of them do not. Facts are stubborn things. The fact is that our approach has created jobs and economic growth; theirs does not.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chairman, we would urge a ``yes'' vote on behalf of this budget for many reasons. One is the strong increase in funding for our veterans. In less than 2 months, just about every Member of this House will go and make Memorial Day speeches. In November, just about every Member will make speeches lauding our veterans on Veterans Day. Tomorrow, Madam Chairman, the Members of the House have a chance to do something more than talk; we have a chance to vote for a budget that strongly supports our veterans. But do not listen to us. Listen to the national commander of the American Legion, who says in a letter dated March 25, ``The American Legion applauds the Budget Committee for the budget resolution recommendation for $53.3 billion in discretionary funding for veterans.'' Listen to the executive director of the VFW, who in a letter dated March 25, 2009, says, ``On behalf of the 2.2 million men and women of the VFW and our auxiliaries, I would like to express our strong support for your proposed budget mark for veterans funding. The $53.3 billion in appropriated veterans funding demonstrates your appreciation for those who have worn the uniform of this Nation, and it acknowledges the debt that this Nation owes to its former defenders.'' Listen to the voice of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America through its executive director. ``For the second year in a row, the committee's budget resolution surpasses even the recommendation of the independent budget, the blueprint for the VA budget endorsed by the leading veterans organizations, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. By increasing veterans funding by 11.5 percent, or $5.5 billion, the committee has displayed their serious commitment to supporting our Nation's veterans.'' Listen to the words of the Vietnam Veterans of America. ``The Vietnam Veterans of America appreciates that Chairman Spratt continues to make it possible even in this difficult budget year amidst tough economic times for the appropriators to be able to properly fund health care and other vital services for veterans,'' says the VVA's national president, John Rowan. Listen to the Disabled American Veterans who say that, ``Our support for the discretionary funding levels included in Chairman Spratt's budget closely reflect the recommendations of the independent budget and reaffirm the goal to provide sufficient funding for the VA.'' They say they particularly appreciate the fact that the chairman's budget rejects any proposal to bill veterans' third-party insurance for the care of service-connected illnesses or injuries. These are not the words of Republicans or Democrats. These are the words of the elected leadership of the veterans service organizations of our country. Veterans funding is one of the strongest aspects of this proposal. The increase is 11.5 percent. It is precisely the request that had been made. There is no issue with respect to requiring veterans to pay more than they presently do for their own health care. I think the Members would be wise to listen to the words of the American Legion, listen to the words of the DAV, listen to the words of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, listen to the words of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, listen to the words of the VFW, listen to the words of the Vietnam Veterans of America. There is strong support in this budget from the chairman, and it is one more good reason to vote ``yes'' for this budget.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. My friend, a very articulate new Member from Wyoming, said it only takes one second to say ``no.'' I would respectfully say the Republicans have gotten it down to that short a period of time because they say it so often. ``No,'' we don't have an approach to solve the global warming problem. ``No,'' we don't have an approach to fix the health care approach. ``No,'' we don't have a plan to create jobs. ``No,'' we don't have a plan to improve education. This idea that when you turn a light on, your taxes are going to go up, is just false. There's nothing in this budget that requires any energy tax to be raised upon any person. If there ever is such a discussion of that, it will come to the floor under a separate vote, under a separate debate, and Members can make their judgment. So I'm not surprised it takes them, Madam Chairman, only a second to say ``no.'' Because they say it so often, they've gotten very good at it.

Mr. ANDREWS. Our friend from Utah just said that we have to learn to say ``no.'' That is something that his party has learned to say quite well. No plan for health care, no plan for education, no plan for job development, and no plan for energy independence. One of our colleagues talked about the estate tax. Interesting exchange, Madam Chairman, that our presentation was about honoring America's veterans and fully funding in a way that the VFW and the American Legion supports, and rather than any response to that point, the other side immediately jumped to talk about the estate tax, which I understand. And the reason we understand it is that this budget assumes that changes will be made in the present estate tax law so that 99.7 percent of American families will not pay the estate tax, 99.7 percent. So our presentation was about veterans who wore the uniform of the country. Their presentation was about the .3 percent of Americans who would pay the estate tax under this proposal. That is where our priorities are.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I would want to say to my friend from Oklahoma that this budget has robust defense increases. What it doesn't have is throwing money into a bottomless pit in a war in Iraq that has consumed so much of our resources for so long. My friend from California, one of the senior Ways and Means members, criticized our budget. These are familiar words, because this is what Mr. Herger said once before: The simple fact is that the plan will not lower interest rates, it will not lower inflation, it will not create jobs, it will not lower the deficit. The tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth. Mr. Herger said that in August of 1993 about the Clinton budget plan, which was going to destroy all these jobs. It created 23 million new jobs, as opposed to the 200,000 new jobs the Republicans created during their 8 years on their watch.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman for yielding. I would like to congratulate our leadership, both of our chairmen and our senior Republican member on both sides and the staffs on both sides and Mrs. McCarthy as well and Mr. Platts for their diligent work on this bill. I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill. The glue that holds our country together is the voluntary efforts of quiet but determined Americans who do the important work of our community and our society. As we meet here this afternoon, there is a senior citizen volunteering to teach a child how to read. There is a high school student who is working in an eldercare facility, perhaps reading books to a senior who cannot see. There are people out cleaning parks. There are people out teaching people a new job skill. There are those who are working with our most at-risk youth to prevent them from self-destructive behavior and instead turning them toward behavior that realizes their full potential. We are fortunate in our country that although we have professionals who perform those services on a paid basis and do so very, very well, but the efforts of those paid individuals are more than supplemented by gifts of time and effort from Americans who volunteer. The wisdom of this bill is it takes a relatively modest amount of money and leverages countless hours of volunteer service and millions of acts of contributions to our community. The reach of this legislation will go far beyond the pages on which it is written. It will touch the lives of those who are often forgotten about, most vulnerable and most in need of help in our communities. But more important, it will enrich the lives of those who are doing the volunteer work. There are few things in life more satisfying than doing a good job for someone because it is the right thing to do. And I think that this bill will create such an experience for a countless number of Americans. Finally, this is a means of extending educational opportunity to many Americans who today presently do not have it. It is a commonsense solution that in exchange for doing valuable work for one's own community today, one can earn valuable credit toward paying for one's higher education tomorrow. Our country's future hinges upon our ability to compete in the global economy. That future is impacted so positively by this bill because of the lives that will be touched by volunteerism and the lives that will be enriched by further education. I again would like to thank our leadership in both parties. We look forward to the President's prompt signature on this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. We will support this amendment because we certainly want whatever analytical tools the Office of Management and Budget or whomever uses to rigorously look at all aspects of this bill and this program. We believe that it's a very sound program, but we certainly invite rigorous scrutiny of the expenditures of the program when it's adopted. I do want to address some of the remarks by my dear friend from North Carolina. I notice she's left the floor. She asked the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman, ``When is the right time to discuss the bonuses paid by some of the recipients of the financial recovery legislation of last fall?'' The answer is: Probably within the next 24 hours. It's the intention of the House leadership, my understanding, to bring to the floor a bill which does not make a political point but actually solves the problem. So I think the short answer to the gentlelady's rhetorical question is: The right time is when you know what you're doing, when you have found the mechanism that will actually solve the problem, and you can bring the bill to the floor when it's the issue on the floor, and not make it into an ancillary diversion, which is what happened here. This bill is about improving and strengthening national service. We believe this amendment is consistent with the bill, and we will support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we would again respectfully request a ``no'' vote on this amendment. The fiscal concerns that the gentleman raises are quite valid. We believe that the procedure that's in place to address those fiscal concerns is the right one, and we actually believe that this bill in many ways is a partial answer to the country's fiscal crisis in three ways: First, it promotes many more people getting a higher education. A skilled workforce is one of the most important ways we can grow the economy. Second, it addresses some of the most pressing needs of the country that are precluding us from growth. Whether it's illiteracy, juvenile delinquency, gaps in our health care system, this underlying bill, we believe, addresses those needs, and this amendment artificially cuts off funding for some of those needs. And, finally, we think that the volunteer hours that are leveraged by this legislation accomplish so much more for the commonwealth at no cost to the public treasury. We believe that the amendment artificially cuts off those possibilities and we urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the committee majority supports the amendment and thanks the gentleman for offering it. The amendment is a great idea for two reasons: First, it will significantly broaden participation by our veterans in the national service programs. The skills and abilities and integrity that veterans bring to these programs will no doubt enhance each one of them. And then secondly, we share with the author of the amendment the conclusion that service in the Armed Forces should not act as a penalty, which it sort of does right now. By counting veterans' benefits against the subsidy characterization, the award characterization, in effect we say that veterans aren't entitled to the same benefit everybody else is. So we think it is an excellent amendment, and we enthusiastically support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment because it replaces carefully reasoned consideration of the growth of the program with an arbitrary standard. I'm quite sympathetic to the author's concern that no program grow more quickly than it should. I think that he's right, and I think that that's a concern we should have in every aspect of the Federal budget. But I think that the proper place to adjudicate that concern is in the appropriations bill. What the bill before us does is to set a maximum limit, an authorization limit, for how much money can go into these programs. As the gentleman knows, each year the Appropriations Committee will consider, among competing priorities for the public funds, how much money this program should receive. The purpose of an authorization level is aspirational. It is to set a goal that we think is the optimal goal. But we may be wrong. It's shocking, but it's been known to happen around here. If that's the case, it is the job of the Appropriations Committee, after full public hearing and usually under a very open procedure here on the floor, for Members to come and debate the proper amount of funding that should go into such a program. So we believe that the goals are right. We believe that the aspirational goals in this organization bill are quite right. But we understand that it's our responsibility to subject those aspirational goals to the rigor of the annual appropriations process, and that is what would happen if the bill passes without this amendment's being adopted. So although we certainly understand the gentleman's concerns, we respectfully oppose his amendment because it deprives the appropriate committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the entire body of the right to make that annual assessment as to what the appropriate level of funding is. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. On behalf of the committee, I just want to congratulate the author of the amendment and indicate my enthusiastic support for your amendment. In hearing the gentlelady tell the story of her neighbors volunteering to bring wind energy to her hometown, imagine how many hours of volunteer effort we will leverage by AmeriCorps and other participants being expanded under this bill. I think the gentlelady is not only directly addressing one of the great needs of rural America, which is energy diversification, but also opening the door for many more people to participate. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The majority strongly supports the amendment.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the request for the rollcall vote on the manager's amendment and to reinstate the voice vote for which the Chair ruled in favor of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in support of the amendment he's offering. The ranking member is correct that the purpose of the underlying bill is to generate volunteers, but I think that the gentleman from Iowa has put a finer point on that and given the structure of the program a specific place at which volunteers will be generated. It is a full-time job to generate volunteers. You need someone who gets up every morning dedicated to that purpose. And although the present program has generated millions of hours of volunteer service, I think too often that's been done in a way that's not as effective and robust as it could be. So we support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption because I believe it will result in a quantum leap in the number of volunteer hours.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the manager's amendment by replacing it with the modification at the desk.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.