Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. So here's one of the issues before the House today. Say you have an American company that owners live here and they decide that they can make more money by sending their jobs to Asia or south of the border, out of the country, and they do. And they bring the money home and enjoy it here, but the jobs go overseas. And they figure out a way to game the tax laws so they don't pay taxes for that business to the United States Treasury. So the profits come home, the jobs go overseas, and the tax revenue doesn't flow into the Treasury. This bill closes that loophole. It says, if you outsource our jobs from this country, you don't get off the hook when it comes to the IRS. Now, what does it use the money for? Well, if an American business goes into a bank today and the bank says, you know, we would make this loan to you to expand your business but we just need a little more collateral, a little more guarantee, this bill says the Small Business Administration can step in and make that loan happen and create those jobs. Or a woman running a software company or a biosciences company says, I've got a real opportunity here to hire more scientists and researchers, but I just can't quite find the capital. This bill says she can hire five scientists for the price of four because of the research and development tax credit, or the mayor and council of a town is saying we could fix our antiquated clean water system. We could build a new water treatment system and have cleaner water and more jobs for people in our town, but the interest rates are just a little bit too high for us. If we could borrow the money just a little bit less expensively, we could create more jobs. This bill says that they can do that. This bill creates jobs, and it pays for the creation of those jobs by saying that those who outsource our jobs can't get off the hook and have to pay their fair share of taxes. Now I know this discomforts some on the minority side. I know it goes against their philosophy that whatever corporate America does, it is okay. We think if you outsource your job you shouldn't get off the hook for your tax obligations.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would say to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, through the Chair, that maybe, instead of a dictionary, we should have a math book or a history book brought out, because there is some historical context, recent historical context, to this discussion. Mr. Speaker, we were told in January of 2009, with respect to the Recovery Act that was on the House floor, that it is clear that it doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen. That was said by our friend, the minority leader of the Republicans, Mr. Boehner, that it is clear that the recovery bill doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen. Now, in the 3 months that were in the context of that remark, for example, in March of 2009, the economy lost 753,000 jobs. In April of 2009, it lost 528,000 jobs. We brought to this floor a bill that put construction workers back to work by building transportation projects. If they bought homes, we gave people tax credits for their downpayments. We sent more people to colleges and to universities on Pell Grants. We cut taxes for small businesses and families across the country. Then what happened? Well, in March of this year, the economy added 230,000 jobs. In April of this year, the economy added another 290,000 jobs. So the other side said in good faith, in January of 2009, these things would not work. They were wrong. They haven't worked as quickly as we want. They haven't worked as much as we want, but the tired philosophy that says that inaction and inattention will fix the problem has failed. A philosophy that says that giving American entrepreneurs, American taxpayers, American construction workers the chance to succeed will and does.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield the balance of my time to my friend from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. ANDREWS. Is it in order to propound a unanimous consent request at this point?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who has had some important personal experience with the issue contained in the Murphy amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendment No. 79 may be offered out of order.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge support of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 2 minutes. I also wanted to make reference to the excellent work that's been done in this bill in the area of our missile defense program. Now, there are obviously disagreements over what the structure of that program ought to be; but when one looks at the fortification of defenses that we already have at Fort Greely and other places, when one looks at the additional investment that we are making in the successful regional-range missile programs that have tested and been quite efficient, I think that the accurate conclusion is that we are fortifying the defenses which have been proven to work in the missile defense field, we are building upon those successes, and we are preparing ourselves for a future generation of defenses that are effective both in a regional context and in the context of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The nonproliferation strategy really has two aspects: it is to be prepared to defend ourselves if a strike occurs, but it is to discourage the proliferation of nuclear capability around the world, as the administration has done in the Security Council negotiations with Iran and it has done with its layered defense missile strategy. So, again, I think this is another point where there is more consensus than disagreement. There is disagreement between the two sides over the best way to pursue an effective ballistic missile defense. I don't think there is a disagreement over whether the pursuit of a ballistic missile defense is in the interest of the country. It most certainly is. I would conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, where I began. We know that the cornerstone of our country's defense is not found in this Chamber. It is found at bases throughout the world, both in the Continental United States and at forward-operating bases and other places overseas. We are profoundly grateful to the men and women who volunteer to serve this country. We, on a bipartisan basis, are expressing our gratitude where it counts: compensation, support for families, education, health care, and other opportunities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

Mr. ANDREWS. The committee supports this amendment because we support Mr. Sarbanes' approach of merit-driven decision-making. The OMB will oversee this process. We believe it will improve quality and protect the taxpayers. We support the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 5136 in the Committee of the Whole and following consideration of Amendment No. 82 printed in House Report 111-498, the following amendments be considered: en bloc No. 3, followed by en bloc No 4. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

Mr. ANDREWS. I think that the process that my friend from California lays out is a correct one, that there should be wide solicitation of views from those who wear the uniform, and there will be. And the amendment that Mr. Murphy will be offering later today simply says this: If, after that process the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff believe that the evidence shows that implementation of the repeal would undercut the readiness or effectiveness of our troops, they will not certify that the policy should be put into effect, and it won't be. The Secretary has repeatedly said, Admiral Mullen has repeatedly said the question is not whether repeal should take place, but how. Mr. Murphy's amendment will set up a rational process for that to take place. I believe it's the right thing to do, and I support Mr. Smith's amendment which is before us right now.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 2 minutes before I yield to my friend from New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the minority, for understandable reasons, wants to continue talking about the Murphy amendment, which is not on the floor. Again, to set the record straight, the Murphy amendment has reflected the views of the joint Chiefs of Staff and of the Secretary of Defense for a very long time. The question has been not ``if'' we are going to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell but when and how. The Murphy amendment says that the policy will not be repealed. It will stay in effect until such time as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense certify that nothing about that repeal will in any way undermine the security of the country, the efficiency of the Armed Forces or their effectiveness. Now, the minority wants to keep talking about this. I think the American people, Mr. Chairman, are a lot more interested in some of the terrorism threats this country is actually facing. By the way, one of the reasons those terrorism threats are more difficult is that we don't have enough Arabic speakers in the intelligence units of our Armed Forces. At least several dozen, perhaps several hundred, Arabic-speaking persons have been expelled from the Armed Forces because of their sexual orientation. That doesn't strike me as a particularly good way to protect national security. Beyond that, though, a good way to protect national security, which is in this bill, is to strengthen our special forces. This legislation spends $9.8 billion on our Special Operations Command, the highest in the history of the country. So, when we call upon brave Americans to kick down that door or to do a commando raid in any dark corner of the world, which is going to prevent a terrorist attack in this country, this bill supports them. Both parties support that and both bills fund it. That is the issue that is actually before the American people. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to someone who has done tremendous work on dealing with brain injuries and other traumas associated with brain injuries, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is a very well-thought-out amendment that encourages competition, which will be a service to the servicemembers of our country, as well as to our taxpayers. We thank the gentleman from Maryland for offering it and would urge Members to support it. I yield back my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment represents a contribution by Members in both parties: very thoughtful, a lot of excellent ideas the committee is pleased to support. So I would urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, each of which has been examined by both the majority and the minority. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) to talk about his ideas to help improve health care for those who serve in our National Guard.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), who has worked very hard on the issue of special combat pay for those facing the fierce actions we are engaged in.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, Members should ask themselves these questions in deciding this issue: When it comes to saving money, would you rather have two people competing or one for your business? When it comes to protecting the fleet, the ability to fly, would you rather rely upon one company or two to keep the fleet flying? When it comes to competition, should you presume that competition works or presume that it shouldn't? To save money, to protect the fleet, to promote competition, we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friend, I yield myself 90 seconds. The gentleman from Indiana's point about the servicemembers being listened to is absolutely right, which is why Mr. Murphy's amendment says--I will comment since he did--if after hearing the comments of the servicemembers the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that there would be an impairment of their ability to defend the country, they would not certify to the change in the policy. There is an echo in this debate, which is a quote from prior debate: The President's move would seriously impair the morale of the Army at a time when our Armed Forces should be at their strongest and most efficient. Such an action is most unfortunate, the Senator declared. The quote is taken from Senator Lister Hill in 1948. The issue was the racial integration of the Armed Forces in 1948. I think this is the same issue.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, I would yield.

Mr. ANDREWS. I understand. Thank you. Excuse me for interrupting, sir.