Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I would then respectfully ask my friend: Why don't we wait and see what the auditor says the bill will cost before we vote on it? My understanding is that they're going to do that probably by the end of this month. Why don't we wait and see what the auditor says it's going to cost before we vote on this bill? And I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from New York. It's great to be with her on the floor today, and my colleagues on the Republican side as well. Today we could be voting on a bill where we work together to cut taxes for small businesses that put Americans back to work, but we are not. Today we could be voting on a bill that would help cities and counties and States around the country rehire police officers and firefighters and teachers they've had to lay off--over 600,000 of them the last few years--but we are not. Today we could be voting on a bill that would say that, if an American company brings jobs back from overseas, we'll cut their taxes and we'll pay for it by eliminating tax giveaways and loopholes for companies that outsource their jobs outside of the United States and take them overseas, but we're not voting on that. For the 31st time in the last 18 months, we're voting on a bill to repeal the health care law. Now, I know there are Americans who feel strongly for and against the health care law, but almost every person I listen to feels very strongly we should be working together to help create an environment where businesses can create jobs for the American people, not voting for the 31st time on essentially a political argument. Now, I do agree with my friend from Texas--and I thank him for mentioning my name; I respect him very much--about the need for facts in this debate. There is one fact that I think we've got to get to right away, which is whether or not the law that they are trying to repeal for the 31st time increases or decreases the Federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office, which is our neutral, nonpartisan auditor, said in January 2011--the first time of the 31 when the other side tried to repeal this law--that repeal of the law would add $220 billion to the deficit. In other words, if you write the law off the books, the deficit goes up because of the spending restraints and the new revenues that are in the bill. I would want to ask my friend from Texas if he can tell us what the effect of the repeal of this bill--in other words, if this bill passes, what will this bill do to the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office? I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The $1.7 trillion cost the gentleman just mentioned is a gross cost. The last time the CBO looked at this, which was in 2011, the first of 31 attempts at repeal, they said that the net savings to the deficit would be over $200 billion. Repealing the health care bill costs the Federal treasury money and adds to the deficit. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, we are. We have no further speakers. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides for the civil and constructive tone of this debate. It's been an honor to be a part of it. I also want to note that the leader of our committee, Congressman Miller of California, is regrettably not with us because of the death of his mother. We extend our condolences to his family and certainly to our beloved colleague, George Miller. I want to speak for just a few minutes about some people who have been left out of this debate tonight. Most importantly, the people who have been left out of this debate are the people looking for a job in this country, are looking to grow business in this country, because that's what we should be working on here together tonight. We should be working on legislation that puts the American people back to work and creates an environment where America's entrepreneurs can grow and thrive and succeed. Instead of doing that, instead of asking Speaker Boehner's infamous question, ``Where are the jobs?'' we're asking, ``Where is the 31st vote on the repeal of the health care bill?'' By doing so, we're forgetting about some other people whose voices will not be heard in this Hall tonight but who need to be heard throughout this country. The person who had a malignancy in her breast when she was in her twenties and now, when she goes to start a company and get insurance in her thirties, is told, We won't sell you an insurance policy because you had breast cancer, or, We'll charge you three times what we charge someone else. That should be illegal. Under the law that the majority is going to repeal today, it is. We ought to be hearing from the family whose son or daughter graduated from college and is still working as a substitute teacher or still going to grad school part-time, who has health insurance today because the law says they can stay on their mother's or father's policy. That should be the law; and under the law the majority wants to repeal today, those families would lose that benefit. We ought to be hearing from the senior citizen who has to choose between paying their prescription drug bill or their utility bill at a time of a heat wave or a cold snap. They ought to be in a situation where the Medicare program helps to make those prescription drugs affordable; and under this law that the majority wants to repeal today, that senior is getting between $600 and $800 a year of a rebate. We ought to be thinking about the family who has suffered the tragedy of a malignancy for a child in their family, and the child hits their millionth dollar of chemotherapy and the insurance company says, We're sorry; we're not insuring you anymore; we're not paying the bill anymore. That ought to be illegal, and it is illegal under the Affordable Care Act. But if the majority succeeds in its repeal, that will no longer be the case. You have heard a lot of things today about what this bill isn't. It isn't a $500 million cut in Medicare. It expands Medicare benefits. It lengthens the Medicare trust. It does so by cutting out corporate welfare for health insurance companies. And every single Republican speaker here today voted for every one of those cuts in the last two Republican budgets. It's not the largest tax increase in American history. Ninety-seven percent of American families don't pay a dollar more in taxes under this bill. If your family has a gross income above about $300,000, yes, you do. But for the other 97 percent of American families, that's not the case. We've heard this is a government takeover of health care. This is a consumer takeover of health care. It's a law that says when your insurance company says to you, ``Sorry, but you have had breast cancer. We won't insure you,'' you don't have to take that anymore. When your insurance company says, ``We're sorry your daughter has leukemia, but we're not paying her bills anymore,'' even though you paid your premiums for 20 years, you don't have to take that anymore. When the insurance company says, ``Here's a bill that's 40 percent higher because you're a woman,'' you don't have to take that anymore. This is not about defending a statute; it's about defending the rights of middle-class Americans who deserve better than this repeal. We should defeat this repeal and come right back to work tomorrow on a bill that will stop outsourcing and support insourcing of American jobs. It's time to get back to work putting America back to work and end the 31st travesty of trying to repeal this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Our side is going to try to bring some facts to the debate. My friend from Minnesota, the chairman of the committee, said this is a job- destroying health care bill. Since the day the President signed the bill, American companies have created 4.3 million private sector jobs. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, who clearly understands the need for high-quality health care for all people in our country, Mr. Hinojosa.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. My friend from Pennsylvania just made reference to the employer mandate. It's very important that the public know and the Members know that if a business has 50 or fewer full-time employees, what they have to do under the Affordable Care Act is nothing. There is no mandate of any kind for a business with fewer than 50 full-time employees. I'm pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady who fought hard for senior citizen rebates and prescription drugs, the gentlelady from Cleveland, Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would ask my friend from Michigan if he could just stay for a question. My friend from Michigan just said that there is an estimate that the bill has doubled in cost, and I have read all the CBO analyses of this bill. I wonder if the gentleman could tell me the source of his statement from the Congressional Budget Office that the bill has doubled in cost from the original estimate. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman could supplement the record with the date and the document that says that, I would appreciate it. At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has become an expert on the budget, who understands that this repeal bill increases the national deficit and debt, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we know what our Republican friends mean when they say give seniors more choice under Medicare. They mean let them choose which private insurance company should run Medicare instead of regular Medicare. American seniors know you can count on the Medicare guarantee no matter what the circumstances are, whether you're profitable to take care of or not. That's why they support Medicare. That's why we support Medicare, even though the majority has voted on several occasions to terminate the Medicare guarantee. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who understands that preexisting conditions should be made illegal and insurance companies should not be able to pursue them, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. We share the gentleman from Wisconsin's concern about squeezing down health care costs. The record shows that since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, growth in Medicare costs, which had been 8 percent annually, has fallen to 6 percent annually by stopping giveaway corporate welfare profits to insurance companies and other waste while increasing Medicare benefits. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a Member who understands that being a woman should never mean paying higher premiums or being a preexisting condition, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear this charge that there's $500 billion in Medicare cuts in the health care bill. Here are the facts: the new law eliminates a corporate welfare subsidy for certain health insurance companies and goes after some wasteful Medicare practices. All the Republican speakers who have spoken today must agree with those cuts because every single one of them has voted for every single one of those cuts in the last two Ryan Republican budgets. Every dollar of Medicare savings in the Health Savings Act is in the last two Republican budgets. I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to someone who understands the benefit of families' being able to keep their sons and daughters on health insurance policies until they're 26, my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. My friend's comments echo ones we've heard for the last 2 years about the unconstitutionality of the law. The Supreme Court spoke with great authority to that question. People may agree or disagree with the policy, but this law is clearly constitutional and valid. I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the author, the originator of the discrimination provisions against preexisting conditions, the gentleman that really initiated that.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds. The gentleman just said this is the largest tax increase in American history. Here is the record: there are two kinds of people who will pay higher taxes under this law. Ninety-seven percent of American families won't pay one dime of tax increases under this law. The first family that pays a tax increase is a family with a gross income in excess of about $300,000 a year. It's about 1 percent, maybe 2 percent, of the U.S. households. The second is a person who can afford health insurance, who elects not to buy it, who uses the emergency room and expects his or her neighbors to pay their bill. That's not the largest tax increase in American history. At this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady who understands who gets hurt if this law gets repealed, the gentlelady from San Diego, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Two points with respect to my friend from Virginia's comments: This tax, once again, 97 percent of American families don't pay a dime more in taxes here. It's families with a gross income in excess of about $300,000 a year and people who can afford health insurance, opt not to buy it, and send their neighbors the bills. These regulations my friend talks about, here's what one of the regulations says: If your health insurance company--which doesn't really have to compete for your business because they have a monopoly or oligopoly-- doesn't spend money on your premiums, at least 80 or 85 percent, they have to give you the money back as a rebate.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. This summer, millions of American families will be getting rebates from their health insurance companies because they haven't spent their money on care; they spent it on profit and overhead. We don't think that's such a bad regulation. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I think my friend, the chairman, has more speakers than we do, so we're going to have them go two for our one to kind of keep it even, if that's okay with my friend, the chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Indiana just said that this would be where taxes would hit the middle class. I wish that were true in some ways because the people this hits are people with a household income of over $300,000 a year. I wish more people in the middle class made more than $300,000 a year, but they do not. And then secondly, with respect to Medicaid enrollees, for the first 3 years the Federal Treasury picks up 100 percent of that cost. And thereafter, the average is about 95 percent of the cost of the new enrollees. This is a benefit to State governments, and I predict that virtually all of them will opt to join in. At this time, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who understands the impact on hardworking families being able to get affordable health care in this country, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. The gentlelady just talked about cutting a half a trillion dollars from Medicare. The fact is that the Affordable Care Act extends the life of Medicare for 8 years. It adds benefits for seniors and, more interestingly, the cuts that were made which take corporate welfare money away from insurance companies and avoid waste were voted on in favor by every Republican who has spoken today because every dollar of those cuts was used in the last two Republican budgets. At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a gentleman who has been a leader in health care for a long time and who understands just how much his district has benefited from affordable health insurance, my good friend from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. My friend from Alabama, in describing the individual mandate which Republicans have supported for years, said that it's imposed irrespective of income. That's not accurate. If you're on Medicaid, the mandate, of course, is covered by Medicaid. There is also a hardship exemption for someone who can demonstrate that he can't afford it, and he is given a subsidy. There is also a religious conscience exemption. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who worked very hard to make sure that small businesses and entrepreneurs were aided by this bill and not hurt by it, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The changes in Medicare that the gentleman from Wisconsin just spoke about added 8 years to the life of Medicare, added benefits to Medicare. They were so bad that he voted for them twice. Every dollar of those Medicare savings were in the last two Republican budgets for which he voted.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we've done some research, and have been unable to find any occasion in the recent history of the House where a major piece of legislation has been brought to the floor where the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored what it's going to cost. I think it's very important that Members understand this. No one can tell the Members of the House how much this repeal will add to the deficit. No one. When the first repeal came up in January of 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said it would add about $220 billion plus to the deficit to repeal the law. No one can tell us this afternoon how much this will add to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has said by about July 23 they will be able to answer that question, but we're in a huge hurry tonight. We have to pass this law this week because Mr. Cantor said the day of the Supreme Court decision that we're going to show how bold and decisive we were. Why should Congress vote on a bill when absolutely no one knows how much it's going to cost? I have not heard that answer from the majority side.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if I may engage the chairman. We have only one speaker left on our side. I assume he has the right to close. If it would be amenable to him, we're going to let him finish the rest of his speakers, and then I will close for our side.

Mr. ANDREWS. The last and only.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time, apparently, in the modern history of the Congress where we voted on a major piece of legislation and not a soul knows how much it's going to cost the Federal treasury. I think that's an irregular and irresponsible procedure. I think on that basis alone people should vote against this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.