Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I would simply urge the Chair to overrule to the point of order on the grounds that precedent, that identical language was found to be in order in the last Congress.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I first appreciate the very respectful manner which our friend from Alaska carried on the debate. I yield the balance of our time to my friend from Ohio, who is the cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. Chabot.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I, of course, could not commit to a bill I haven't read. But I will say this. If there are sound management environment principles, it's an issue I'd have to take under consideration.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I would certainly have an open mind to his idea should he introduce such a bill.

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is very important the Record be clear about this endless rhetoric about tax increases. Here are the facts: The budget resolution that was adopted by the House does not raise taxes in this fiscal year or the next on anyone. When the tax cuts that the erstwhile majority enacted expire at the end of 2009, our budget resolution calls for us to look at the state of the economy, the state of the budget and the state of the situation, and, unlike the erstwhile majority, make a choice as to what to do. There is no tax increase in this fiscal year or the next one. What there is in this amendment is a strange sense of irresponsibility, that in a world where we are threatened by all kinds of threats and difficult problems, in a budget that is going to spend less than 1.5 percent out of every dollar we spend in improving our relations with countries around the world, that we have an irresponsible proposal like this. There is no tax increase this year. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to first thank the gentlewoman, the chairperson, for the funding she has supplied for this program. I believe we are at a crucial time in the southern part of our hemisphere. I believe that it will go one way or the other in the years ahead. It will either be a breeding ground for violence, trouble, and difficulty; or it will be a breeding ground for the democratic values that will make us safer and stronger and more prosperous. Cuba is not the only country that will influence that decision, but it is a pivotal country. And I think an investment in the long-term process of promoting democracy and prosperity in Cuba is not only in the best interest of the Cuban people but in the best interest of the American people. Many of the issues that my friend from Massachusetts talked about have been addressed and corrected. But I think the largest mistake that we could make would be to avoid our responsibility and opportunity to influence positively those who wish to bring democracy and the rule of law to Cuba at this very critical time in her history. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting this morning, Friday, June 15, 2007, as I was attending the graduation of my daughter. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: No. 470, No. 473, No. 483, No. 491. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: No. 466, No. 467, No. 468, No. 469, No. 471, No. 472, No. 474, No. 475, No. 476, No. 477, No. 478, No. 479, No. 480, No. 481, No. 482, No. 484, No. 485, No. 486, No. 487, No. 488, No. 489, No. 490.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, the chairman, for producing an excellent budget for which every Member should vote. Responsible people do not pay their bills by borrowing from their children. Responsible people analyze what they can afford, spend only that and save what they can. For too long, this Congress has labored under a culture of irresponsibility: focus on the next election, spend what you want to, hand out tax cuts to your supporters, and let someone else worry about it down the line. This budget ends that culture of irresponsibility, and it stands for one clear principle over and over again. We will not run this government on borrowed money, period. We wish to double the number of children covered by the children's health insurance program and we will. But when we do so, we will pay for it without borrowing more money. Most of us absolutely are committed to extending the tax breaks for middle class families that help them survive, but when we do so, we will do so without borrowing more money from the Chinese, from the Germans, and from our grandchildren. The easy thing to do around here is to spend more, tax less and borrow more. What it gets you is higher mortgage rates, higher car loan rates, more unemployment, more debt and no explanation whatsoever to the next generation in this country. Today marks a turning point away from the culture of irresponsibility, toward a culture of responsibility for the future of people of this country. I urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote ``yes'' on this budget. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the chairwoman of the committee, and I will support the amendment. I just am curious as to why, in a process of bipartisan negotiation, the amendment wasn't raised before now; why in a 14-hour markup it wasn't raised before now; why in a rule that made dozens of amendments in order it wasn't raised until now. The chairman of the committee saw the amendment 5 minutes before it was issued. It says a lot about the devotion of the minority to this cause.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this bill which I believe merits the support of Members of both parties because it makes three strategic judgements that are very sound and very right. First, it makes the judgment that the highest priority of the Congress should be the pay, the benefits and the well-being of the families of the men and women who wear the uniform of the country. Together, as Republicans and Democrats, we're doing more in this bill than we've ever done before to serve those needs. Second, this bill makes the right strategic judgment to deal with the urgent present needs of men and women in theater in the field. Yes, this is at the expense of future systems that will some day aid our competitive edge. And I believe in funding those systems. But the choice we need to make today is the up-armored vehicles, the weaponry, the training, the support for men and women in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the heat of battle today. This is the right strategic judgment. Finally, this bill decides to take $764 million out of strategic missile defense, still giving the President 91.5 percent of what he asked for, and spending the money on securing loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, spending the money on converting reactors that could be turned into bomb material in the former Soviet Union. These threats were identified as the principal threat to the national security by the 9/11 Commission. This is the right strategic judgment. For these and many other reasons, I would urge both Democrats and Republicans to vote ``yes'' on this very fine bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I again thank Mr. Skelton, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Saxton for this, I think, excellent effort to improve upon a very real problem that we saw in acute relief last week in New Jersey. I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am aware of the extraordinary burden that this requirement could impose on residents of rural and remote areas of southern Arizona. I look forward to working with the gentlelady to find an appropriate accommodation.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this important issue. I assure the gentlelady that I recognize her concerns about the specific military installation in her district and do not want this legislation to cause hardship on its surrounding communities.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and neighbor from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and I thank him for his decisive and quick action in dealing with the problem of protecting our servicemembers and employees and visitors to our military bases. I am proud to join with him in this amendment. At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a healthy, robust debate on this question, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. I oppose this amendment because I believe its provisions subvert the best hope for stabilizing Iraq and ending the Iraqi civil war. I believe that if the responsible Sunni and Shia leadership in that country believe that it will become their responsibility to reach a political settlement to the end of the civil war, they will do so. I believe they will never accept that responsibility if they believe that the presence of the United States is permanent and indefinite. I think, as the base bill does, that making a statement that we do not wish to have permanent bases in Iraq supports this theory, and will bring about a greater probability of stabilization of Iraq and an end to the Iraqi civil war. So I believe the amendment sends precisely the wrong message and I oppose it.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. My friend from Florida a few minutes ago talked about a threat over the horizon. He is right, it is a threat, and it's over the horizon. This bill takes, to deal with that threat, for every $100 the President asks for, we give them $91.50 to deal with that threat. We allocate that money in this way. We say for the technologies that are robust and mature and working, let's do more of it to protect us better and sooner. But for the technologies that are untested, let's test them and see if they work. Now, what do we do with the $8.50 per $100 that we do not put into these untested technologies? We find what the 9/11 Commission has called the grave immediate threat to the country. A grapefruit-sized quantity of loose nuclear material, if made into a bomb by a terrorist group, could create a Hiroshima-type explosion in Times Square in New York City, or at the Washington Mall here in this city. The administration is on a path to convert reactors that have that loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union to get them all done in the next 14 years. We don't think that's good enough. So we take the money and speed it up so those reactors will be converted and shut down sooner. That threat is not over the horizon. It is here today. That is where we should be spending our money, and that is why this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I want to thank the ranking member of the committee for his great cooperation on this, and obviously our chairman for his help, and extraordinarily fine staff work by the majority staff and the minority staff for which I am very grateful, and also the men and women at the CBO, and my own office, Mr. Luke Ballman, for his hard work on this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will further yield, that is certainly correct. I know just how beneficial these authorities are to the Department, and I do not want my amendment to prevent the Secretary of Defense from using these tools to continue to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy use in the Department of Defense. My intent is simply to set firm requirements from what I believe is a responsible energy policy for the Department of Defense.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I would gladly work with the gentleman.

Mr. ANDREWS. That is correct. The amendment, as I would have wanted it drafted, would not have had that restriction in it. However, I was required to include it to avoid a point of order for direct spending.