Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the key determinants of the country's economic prosperity in the future and our ability to become less dependent upon imported fuel from around the world is our ability to develop alternative renewable fuels. One of the most powerful tools at our disposal is the purchasing power of the Department of Defense. Presently, the Department of Defense spends in excess of $3 billion a year to buy electricity. The purpose of this amendment is to codify a practice that the Secretary of Defense has already initiated, which is to increase the percentage of electricity purchased by the Department of Defense from the 9 percent, which it presently is, up to 25 percent by the year 2025. In order to do this, we believe that the Secretary of Defense should have flexibility. So the amendment provides that if the Secretary in his or her judgment believes that defense and security goals of the country would be in some way impaired by meeting this target, then the Secretary is authorized to waive this target. We believe that with the adoption of this amendment and of these goals, we would generate a $15 billion market in the purchase of electricity generated by renewable fuels. We further believe that the entrepreneurial capacity of American scientists and entrepreneurs would generate products that would help fill this need. Once those products are available, they would then be widely available to the commercial and nonprofit and public sectors to help us greatly reduce our dependence upon nonrenewable fuels generally, and imported nonrenewable fuels specifically. I would ask that the amendment be adopted. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered in accordance with the modification.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I reciprocate the respect expressed by my friend, the ranking member from California, and respectfully disagree with his interpretation of the amendment. In a situation where we would want to interdict IEDs, there are two ways that this bill makes it clear we could do so. The first is, under all of the other titles of this bill that fund all the other operations of our Armed Forces we would have the authority to do so. And second, such an example is not a major contingency operation in Iran under the contemplation of the bill. So we would absolutely have the ability to interdict the creation or transport of IEDs. Second, with respect to a hostage situation, rescuing hostages is not planning a major contingency operation in Iran. Nothing would preclude our military personnel from executing such a mission should the need arise, either under this title or under the other titles of the bill. So as I said in my opening remarks, it is clear to me that under emergency or self-defense circumstances, there are no limitations whatsoever. What this amendment does is to properly assert the constitutional authority of this coequal branch of government that if this country is to initiate hostilities, is to conduct a major contingency operation in Iran, the President must come to this body and ask for our permission. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the interest of freedom-loving people around the world to deny the present regime in Tehran access to a nuclear weapon. The amendment that I submit does not raise the issue of the propriety of Iran having a nuclear weapon. The amendment I submit raises the issue of the propriety of this coequal branch of our government asserting its proper constitutional authority. My amendment contemplates, Mr. Chairman, the following circumstances, and I want to be very clear about this. If our troops in Iraq become involved in a fight that requires them to in some way engage, in order to defend themselves, Iranian personnel in a given situation, they have the right and power and authority to do so. Mr. Chairman, if our planners on the military side, as part of their normal planning exercises, as they do throughout the world and around the globe, find it necessary to game out and analyze the circumstances under which we would prepare for conflict with Iran, they have the authority to do so. Any American soldier or servicemember under any circumstances has the authority to defend himself or herself, and the President has the authority to act under emergency or self-defense circumstances. However, in those circumstances under which the President would wish to initiate a major contingency operation in Iran, this amendment says he may not use funds which we have authorized and appropriated to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment asserts the proper constitutional authority of this coequal branch of government. The Constitution vests us, as the duly elected representatives of the people, with the authority and responsibility to decide when this country will initiate hostilities in order to serve our national interest absent an emergency or a self- defense situation. This amendment preserves that emergency authority of the President. It preserves the self-defense authority of the President. But it properly asserts the duly assigned constitutional role of this branch to decide the circumstances under which we should go forward with a major contingency operation. Mr. Chairman, whether Members believe that we should be more aggressive or less aggressive with Iran, they should support this amendment. Whether Members believe that we should pursue more active diplomacy or a different kind of diplomacy, they should pursue and support this amendment. The question here is not the proper policy with respect to Iran. The question here is the proper allocation of constitutional authorities between and among the branches. I would urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank those involved in this bipartisan effort for a commonsense idea. I would especially like to thank my new colleague, Ms. Shea-Porter from New Hampshire, who has shown great interest in the volunteer fire service; Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, who wrote the FIRE Act; the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl), who has long been interested in this issue. I would also like to thank Mr. Matthew Riggins of my office for his participation on this matter. Here is what the bill says. If a volunteer firefighter or EMT is called to a national emergency as declared under the relevant statutes and that volunteer responds to a call, not self-volunteers but responds to a call, that person should have protection when they go back to his or her job. They shouldn't be fired, they shouldn't be disciplined, they shouldn't have their pay docked for up to 14 days in each calendar year. The service that is performed by our volunteer firefighters and EMTs across this country is enormous and enormously important. We believe that none of those individuals should have the burden of suffering problems at work because of their voluntary spirit. Again, one cannot self-volunteer. Again, the emergency must be sufficient in scope for a Presidential declaration. We believe this makes good sense, and it is a good bipartisan issue, and I urge Members of the House to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to a new Member who has shown a real affinity for and commitment to these issues in her short time here, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for 2 minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the author of the FIRE Act.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I did want to thank personally thank the ranking member of the full committee, who is co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus, for his support and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, for his enthusiastic support for this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Student Loan Sunshine Act. This bill helps to ensure that parents and students have access to all student loan options available to them in order to make the best informed decision. Some key improvements include providing students information on all federal student aid opportunities through a new ``one-stop'' link on the Department of Education website. This will allow students to have access to all lenders of their choice, and not feel limited with preferred lender list. The bill also requires institutions disclose all relationships with lenders and protects students from aggressive marketing practices. The student loan industry has been under intense scrutiny recently and it is our obligation as Members of Congress to promote open and honest leadership. I applaud Chairman Miller for developing a strong piece of legislation that will help restore trust in the student loan industry. Access to affordable and quality education is a key element to this country's future. As a cosponsor of the Student Loan Sunshine Act, I encourage my fellow colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it's not surprising to me why there is such disorientation from the erstwhile majority about the budget resolution that will be going to conference. It's because it contains a principle that they don't understand, which is called deficit reduction. The erstwhile majority made a living out of borrowing money, spending more, taxing less, borrowing more; spending more, taxing less, borrowing more. They turned a huge projected budget surplus into an immense budget deficit and debt, which will be paid for by the children and grandchildren of the Members of this institution. Mr. Speaker, here are the facts about the budget resolution the House passed: The fact is not one dollar of taxes is raised on anyone in the fiscal year covered by the first year of this resolution or the second year. Now, we get to a point at the end of 2009 where the tax cuts which the erstwhile majority enacted a few years ago expire. They passed a law that said that those tax cuts expire. We say let's pause at that point and decide what is in the best interest of the country. And there are options. Perhaps the surplus will have grown to the point where we can finance all of those tax cuts and not increase the deficit. Perhaps there will be greater revenues that have been projected under our conservative revenue estimates and we will be able to afford to extend all the tax cuts. Perhaps we will look at the state of the economy at that time and decide that the best thing to do is to extend all the tax cuts to try to engender some economic growth. Or perhaps we will decide that a rigid discipline that emphasizes deficit reduction, as is in this resolution, is the right thing to do. The erstwhile majority practiced the principle of leap first and look later. This resolution says look before you leap. It says when we reach the point where the tax cuts expire, we will make a judgment about whether spending cuts, tax cut renewal, or some other strategy is in the best interest of the country. Not one dollar of taxes is raised in the first fiscal year covered by this budget, and nothing in this resolution necessitates the raising of any taxes on anyone. It simply says, Mr. Speaker, that Congress should do something the erstwhile majority never did: Look before you leap. Make decisions based on good economic evidence, not blind faith.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Cheerleading Squad at Washington Township High School. For the second year in a row, these outstanding student athletes won the Battle at the Capitol National Cheerleading Championship. These young ladies are athletes in every sense of the word. They are dedicated and hardworking and spend up to 7 days a week practicing, cheering at basketball games and competing during the winter season while remaining excellent students. Team members include: Brooke Albano, Ashley Bonnette, Samantha Carfi, Victoria Collins, Bernadette Davis, Gabrielle DeMarco, Alyssa DeSilvio, Dana Dondici, Maria Freedman, Samantha Hersch, Holly Lloyd, Danielle Mace, Caitlin McFall, Jenna Melchionna, Alyssa Mericle, Kristen Nisbet, Amanda Nowaczyk, Taryn Ortlip, Dana Pasqualone, Christy Pettit, Taylor Sartorio, Rachel Sims, Amanda Toton, Stephanie Toton, and Dana Villasin. This year the Washington Township High School Cheerleaders competed against squads from around the country and won the Battle at the Capitol National Championship in Fairfax, Virginia. They also won the Olympic Conference Grand Championship for the eighth year in a row and the New Jersey Cheering and Dancing Coaches Association State Championship for the third year in a row. Madam Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the Washington Township High School Cheerleaders on their National Championship win.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, by vetoing this bill, the President refuses to sustain the troops that we have sent to Iraq. Every dollar they need, every ounce of protection they need, and the health care they need when they come home is in this bill that he has vetoed. We refuse to sustain a failed, endless policy that takes us nowhere. The President refuses to acknowledge the reality that we have sent our sons and daughters to be referees in a bloody civil war. We acknowledge that reality, and we want to stop it. The President refuses to acknowledge the comments of General Petraeus, who says that ending this civil war is a political mission, not a military one. We acknowledge that reality, and we provide the tools to achieve success in that political mission. Today the President has refused to acknowledge the will of the American people, but we are expressing the will of the American people. We will vote to override this veto, and the result will obtain. But we will never yield, never quit, never back up in this effort to change this failing policy and bring our troops home from Iraq. Vote to override this veto.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I congratulate Chairman Miller and Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell for their work, and especially my friend, Congresswoman Slaughter, and Congresswoman Biggert for her great work. I think we should reflect on the great work they are achieving on this bill. Madam Speaker, if your grandmother had breast cancer, you shouldn't be denied a job or a promotion. That's what this bill says. If your dad is a diabetic, you shouldn't have to pay higher health insurance premiums. That's what this bill says. When the scientific community comes to you and asks you to participate in a genetic study that may hold the key to unlocking the mystery of AIDS or Alzheimer's or leukemia, you should be able to participate fully and freely without fear that your genetic information will be unlawfully and improperly shared with someone who wants to do the wrong thing with it. This is a significant achievement, not only in protecting the working men and women of America from discrimination, but in empowering American scientists to achieve the maximum that we can from the promise of genetic medicine. The bipartisan effort to support this bill will be vindicated year after year and case after case as Americans can work freely, can avoid discrimination, and as scientists can take the next step and the next step and the next step to unlock the keys to genetic medicine. So I congratulate my friends, Madam Speaker, for their great work on this bill. I enthusiastically support it. I ask everyone to vote ``yes.'' I would like to note that the final version of H.R. 493 represents the input and compromises made by 3 committees of jurisdiction. In particular, I would like to mention 3 critical compromises reflected in the final bill: (1) the bill does not affect or limit the ability of health plans to provide information to their members about the availability and benefits of genetic tests, (2) the bill is intended to supplement the protections afforded under HIPAA and not intended to prohibit practices permitted under HIPAA unless explicitly stated, and (3) the bill is intended to provide 2 comparable but distinct causes of action for violations of the Act with respect to genetic information. Health plans and insurers generally are subject to the requirements of the title 1. Employers, including to the extent employers control or direct health benefit plans, are subject to the requirements of title II of the bill. I commend my colleagues on all 3 committees for their hard work to enable us to pass this important genetic information protection bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the outstanding athletes of the Lady Vols of the University of Tennessee for being outstanding students, outstanding athletes, and great representatives of their university in this country. I must say, coming from New Jersey, as far as we were concerned, there were two champions playing in this championship game that took place. The Lady Vols won a decisive victory fair and square on the court, although those of us that are fans of Rutgers say we will be back next year to challenge again. But I was in the chair when the Rutgers resolution passed last week, and I did not want to let this moment pass without adding my voice to acknowledge the championship quality of the young women on both of these teams. In New Jersey, we are particularly proud of the grace and dignity and class shown by the young women of the Rutgers Scarlet Knights basketball team. We think those characteristics are amply shared by the Lady Vols as well, and I just wanted to add my voice of congratulations as the runner-up to the Lady Vols. But we believe that our young ladies, Mr. Speaker, from Rutgers are champions in every sense of the word.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation because where continuity is merited, we have continuity, and where change is demanded, we have change. The continuity comes from the fact of a bipartisan consensus to provide every dollar that our troops in the field need, and this bill does that. That will not change. What must change, though, is the abrogation of constitutional responsibility by the erstwhile majority. For over 3\1/2\ years, the erstwhile majority, Mr. Speaker, vacillated between apology and inaction. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief, but no President should be the sole source of law and judgment. And for nearly 4 years, the erstwhile majority sat silently by as the quagmire deepened. That is changing under this legislation. What also must change is the policy itself. We have been asked what our plan was. Here it is. We say to the Iraqis, you promised to pass an oil law. Pass it. You promised to have local elections. Have those elections. You promised to stand up your own security and police forces. Put them into the fight. If you succeed, we will then stay for an 18-month period of time to facilitate your success, but if you fail, the days of the blank check and the endless commitment are over. The erstwhile majority, Mr. Speaker, has a hard time recognizing this plan because they have no plan. Their only approach is to ratify the failure of the status quo. The troops in the field and the American people deserve much, much better, and that is what this legislation provides. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Roger Dennis who is retiring as Provost of Rutgers University. Roger has been a member of the Camden Campus community in Camden, New Jersey for almost a quarter of a century, and I consider him a dear friend. Roger has greatly contributed to the reputation of excellence at Rutgers University. Serving as Provost since 1997, he fostered exciting developments in the City of Camden and the Southern New Jersey region. Among these initiatives are the Rutgers-Camden Technology Campus, the Senator Walter Rand Institute for Public Affairs, and the first doctoral program in children's studies to be offered on the Camden Campus. He has also spearheaded several ongoing improvements to the existing campus. Madam Speaker, I offer my congratulations to Roger Dennis for his outstanding years of service to Rutgers University and the City of Camden. Roger has been a trusted friend and I thank him for his support and advice over the years. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. On behalf of the chairman, we thank the gentleman for his carefully crafted amendment. We think it is important that there be a department-wide ombudsman as well as in the services. The majority will support the amendment.

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