Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on September 25, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted no on H.R. 5059, to designate the Wild River Wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in the State of New Hampshire, no on H.R. 5062, to designate as wilderness certain National Forest System land in the State of New Hampshire, and yes on H.R. 6102, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, Virginia, as the ``Captain Christopher Petty Post Office Building''.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Honorable Joel B. Rosen, United States Magistrate Judge of the New Jersey District, for his exceptional service to his community. I consider Joel a close friend, and commend him for his continuing commitment to the practice of law. After graduating from Rutgers School of Law at Camden, with honors, Judge Rosen served as an Assistant United States Attorney. For a time, he was the attorney-in-charge of the United States Attorney's Office in Camden where he received several commendations from the Department of Justice for prosecuting organized crime and political corruption. He also served as the Chief of the Special Prosecutions Section as a Deputy Attorney General in the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. In 1987, Judge Rosen was sworn in as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey. Judge Rosen was awarded the Rutgers School of Law Honorable Joseph M. Nardi Jr. Distinguished Service award in 2004. In 1999, he received the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. ``Champions for Social Justice and Equality Award'' from the Black Law Students Association at Rutgers School of Law. He was the recipient of the Special Achievement Award from the Department of Justice in 1976 and received Special Commendation of Outstanding Service in the District of New Jersey, Department of Justice in 1975. Judge Rosen is a Former Member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction and the Federal Judicial Center, Magistrate Judge Education Committee. He was also the Former President of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association. I have known Joel both personally and professionally for over a decade and have found him to be a man of outstanding moral character. His compassion and integrity are only matched by his keen mind and superior knowledge of the law. I am proud to call Joel a friend.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, because I was taking my children to their first day of school, I missed one vote on September 7, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 981 (Providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 503 to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this bill offers much to recommend in improving pension law. In particular, I applaud the inclusion of relief for multi-employer plans and the clearing up of some of the contradictions and ambiguities around hybrid defined benefit plans. But I must rise in opposition to this bill for two reasons. The first is that the bill makes a mistake that the majority said from the very outset it did not want to make, which was to favor one industry over another in affording relief for single-employer plans. Not only does this bill afford more protection for some industries over others, but within an industry, within the airline industry, it exhibits I believe unwise favoritism for some airlines over others. The majority started this process by saying it did not want to choose winners and losers among industries. What in fact I believe it has done is to choose winners and losers within an industry, which I think is unwise and a bad precedent to set. Secondly, I must rise in opposition to this bill because of its procedural irregularity. There is a conference which was seated several months ago that is dealing with these issues. What is before us tonight is a brand-new bill, not a conference report. This does not recognize months of negotiation between the two Houses and between the two parties. It is a brand-new bill that starts without anyone I think truly vetting or understanding. And I must say that my Democratic colleagues who are conferees on this bill, Mr. Miller, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Payne, among the three of them they have 90 years of experience in this House, and they were afforded no opportunity to attend a meeting of the conference, to ask a question at the conference, to express their views at the conference. This is not disrespect to them; it is disrespect to their constituents and to the millions of people whose views are represented by Mr. Miller and Mr. Rangel and Mr. Payne and others. This is an awfully important area of legislation. To rush head on with a bill that no one has read, ignoring a conference that has never met, that ignores 90 years of experience from Members on this side I think is a mistake. So despite the good that I know is in this bill, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Cadet Andrew W. Doyle for his promotion to Chief Petty Officer of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. On May 14th, 2006, family and friends of CPO Doyle gathered on the Battleship New Jersey in Camden to celebrate this outstanding achievement. During his more than three years of service, Andrew Doyle has exemplified what it is to be a leader. He has also demonstrated a deep patriotism that has propelled him to this elite rank. Because of his dedication, ability, and significant contribution to the community, Andrew Doyle is truly an inspiration to U.S. Naval Sea Cadets everywhere, and to all citizens of this nation. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor CPO Andrew W. Doyle for his remarkable record of service and accomplishments. There is no doubt that CPO Doyle will be successful in whatever challenges he undertakes and will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all. I extend to him my heartfelt congratulations and I wish Chief Petty Officer Andrew W. Doyle the best of luck in his future.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Doug Dash, a man who has served his community and his country for nearly 30 years. Doug is a graduate of West Chester State College. He was a teacher in Pennsauken, NJ and is the proud grandfather of a beautiful four and a half year old girl. During his time serving his community as a letter carrier, Doug has also been the Congressional Liaison for the Cherry Hill Postal Service. Mr. Dash began serving his community as a postal employee after he had already served his country in the armed forces for two years, receiving a Purple Heart after one year in Vietnam. Doug has been serving Cherry Hill and the First Congressional District of New Jersey since 1979. Mr. Speaker, I commend Doug Dash today for all that he has done for The First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country. Doug's life of service is worthy of admiration, and in addition to being a constituent and colleague, I am proud to call Doug Dash a friend.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and honor Channel Logistics, LLC for their recent achievement in maritime domain and seaport security. On April 1, 2006, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers presented their Annual Corporate Innovation Award to Channel Logistics, LLC during the Institute's annual awards dinner in Philadelphia. The award recognizes the company's development of the Computer Assisted Threat Evaluation System. This system evaluates potential maritime and port security threats among ships, crew and cargo entering our ports. It is able to evaluate threats by analyzing information contained within maritime databases through the processes of data fusion, pattern and choke point mapping. This technology plays an important role in uncovering possible terrorist threats to our vulnerable maritime and port infrastructures. I am proud that Camden, NJ-based Channel Logistics, LLC is a leader in developing innovative technologies designed to secure our country and ports, and I congratulate them on receiving the IEEE's distinguished Annual Corporate Innovation Award.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. No bill more clearly captures the distorted values of the majority of the House than the bill before us right now. People who earn the minimum wage and work full time mostly live below the poverty level, and they have been waiting for a very long time for a raise in their pay. This bill says to those who wash dishes and launder laundry and clean houses, you got to wait just a little bit longer for that raise. You have to wait until the wealthiest people in the country are able to see their heirs pay little or no tax on the wealth that is passed to the next generation. Now, the idea of reducing or eliminating the estate tax may or may not have merit, and that idea deserves a free and separate debate on this floor, but so does the idea of raising the minimum wage for those at the bottom of the ladder in this country. This shows us who comes first. This bill says those that launder laundry and clean rooms and work in car washes will wait their turn until the wealthiest people in the country can pass off wealth to their heirs. They come first. This is a shameful distortion of the country's values. We should vote now and we should vote ``yes'' for an increase in the minimum wage, free and clear of this distortion of values for the estate tax. Vote against this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, due to my attendance at the swearing in ceremony of New Jersey Commissioner of Labor David Socolow, I missed three votes on July 24, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1496 (Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005), ``yea'' on S. 203 (National Heritage Areas Act of 2005) and ``yea'' on H.R. 5534 (To establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in support of his motion. I want to try to explain, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues what one of the issues in Mr. Miller's motion has to do with. Let's assume that we have a pension plan that is only 75 percent funded; that is to say, it has $75 for every $100 that it needs to meet its pension obligations. Under the bill that passed the House, the people that run that plan could say the following: The CEO of the company could continue to get 100 percent of the benefits that he was entitled to under the plan, the wealthiest person in the company. But the person who cleans his office at night could have her pension cut. Let me say this again. If the plan had $75 for every $100 that it needs, under the provision the House passed, the CEO of the company gets every nickel that he is entitled to. No cut at all. But the custodian who cleans his office at night, or the clerk who types his letters, or the person who delivers his documents, could have their pension cut considerably. Now, this is not right. This is not right. If some employees are going to take a cut in their pension, then it seems fair that everyone should share equally in that punishment. One of the great principles of the American economy is that a rising tide lifts all boats. When a company prospers, so does everyone in the rank and file, so does every shareholder, so does every investor, one would hope. And lots of decisions are predicated upon that principle. We want the executives to flourish and prosper, because if they do, they will make better decisions for the people who clean the offices and type the letters and deliver the documents. But the corollary to that principle is, if the boat is sinking, then some people can't jump off the boat into a life boat while everybody else stands there as the ship goes down. That seems rather fair. One might call this the Titanic principle, you know, where the people who were in the luxury compartments got to the life boats first, but the people locked in steerage sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. The Senate has a very different provision. Ninety-seven senators voted in favor of this provision; and it said, very simply, the same rule that applies to the lady who cleans the office at night should apply to the CEO who sits in the office all day long. Ninety-Seven senators voted in favor of that provision. Two voted against it. Mr. Miller's motion wisely says that this House should go on record as saying that is the provision we ought to adopt. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Tim Friedman on his retirement from the House of Representatives and the House Democratic Cloakroom. Mr. Friedman, a native of Lackawanna, NY, arrived in Washington, DC, in 1976 and started his career in the House of Representatives on July 19, 1976 under the patronage of Hon. Dan Rostenkowski. He worked as a Doorkeeper under Hon. James T. Molley from 1976 to 1982 then transferred to the office of the House Sergeant at Arms and worked as an assistant to the Hon. Jack Russ. In 1985, Mr. Friedman became the Assistant Manager of the House Democratic cloakroom. His contributions are immeasurable. Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere congratulations to Tim Friedman. I wish Mr. Friedman and his wife, Colleen, a relaxing retirement filled with many rounds of golf. Thank you for your service to the House of Representatives, and to our Nation.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct; and I hear my friend's comments about process and responsibility. This has been the most irresponsible pension conference process one could imagine. Mr. Speaker, I was sent here, as were my colleagues, duly elected by my constituents to speak for them. I was appointed by the leadership of my party to participate in this conference to speak for all of our constituents. There have been many meetings; we have been invited to none. There have been many discussions; we have participated in none. So if you want to talk about a responsible process, let's talk about one where every person duly elected to represent his or her constituents has a chance to do so. This process is a travesty. Now, on to the substance. The words ``cash balance plans'' are a little hard to understand. They are theoretical, they are abstract; but they are very easy to understand if you are 50 years old and you have been working somewhere for 25 years and you are planning your retirement assuming you are going to get a certain amount every month in the mail as a check that you have earned. And then, one, the HR department comes in and says we have changed our mind. Instead of getting a check for a certain amount every month that you have earned, we are going to give you a lump sum instead, and assume that when you invest it, you will get about the same amount. Mr. Miller's motion says two things: It says that the version of this idea that passed the Senate 97-2 should be the version that applies; that maybe we should give some workers the chance to choose whether to go into this system or not, to put more power into the hands of the worker and the retiree to choose what happens to them, rather than have the employer make that decision. That sounds reasonable to me. And the second thing that Mr. Miller does is to say let's take the assumptions that are most protective to the retiree. Let's err on the side of giving the retiree too much, not too little. I don't think that is too much to ask. I think the House should join with 97 Senators from both parties and adopt the version of this idea that is in the Senate bill. Vote ``yes'' on Mr. Miller's motion to instruct.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeanne Sanitate, a disabled Air Force veteran from Medford, New Jersey on her three gold medals and one bronze medal in the 26th Annual Veterans Wheelchair Games in Alaska. The 26th Annual Wheelchair Games took place July 3-8, 2006 and is the largest annual wheelchair sports event in the world. This event is committed to improving the quality of life for veterans with disabilities and fostering better health through sports competition. Jeanne Sanitate joined more than 500 people, both novices and experienced athletes, for a week of competition in more than 15 events. Jeanne Sanitate won her gold medals in bowling, Air-Gun Para, and table tennis. She also collected a bronze in softball. This was her first time competing in the games, and she competed as a Class IV in the novice division. Mr. Speaker, I celebrate the accomplishments of Jeanne Sanitate at the 26th Annual Veterans Wheelchair Games. I applaud her past service to this country as a veteran and her remarkable athletic abilities and personal achievements.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, due to transportation problems, I missed 3 votes on July 17, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3085, to amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes; ``yea'' on H.R. 3496, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2005; and ``yea'' on H.R. 3729, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act of 2005.

Mr. ANDREWS

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to take a policy that promotes the idea of fair competition and make that policy actually happen in practice. The A-76 Circular policy ensures that in instances where a Federal Department wishes to contract out a certain function, that there is a fair competition that would ensue between the Federal employees who believe they should continue to serve that function and those who would wish to have the function contracted out. There is a process by which the various costs and benefits are reviewed, there is a process where the consequences are reviewed, and then a decision is made. The problem with the present process is this: when the contractor wins the competition, the employees do not have a right of appeal if they wish to dispute the finding. On the other hand, if the employees win the competition, the contractor does have the right of appeal. We think that this is an unfair and unfortunate policy. The purpose of our amendment is to suspend the A-76 process in the Departments covered by this bill until there can be reform and improvement of that process. I wanted to especially thank and commend my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who is the cosponsor of this amendment and who has worked very diligently and very intensely on this matter. He has a scheduling conflict at this moment, but has worked very hard on this; and I want to be sure that due credit is given for his efforts. Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman and again thank my coauthor, Mr. Jones, and once again urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution because the process under which it is being considered is deeply flawed and unfair to those with legitimate opposing points of view. There are Members in this chamber who want to offer specific plans on Iraq and they have the right to have these proposals debated and voted on. This entire debate is a sham, Mr. Speaker. This resolution was brought to the floor to help Republicans win in November, not to help our country win the war in Iraq. Make no mistake about it; it is very important for this House to formally acknowledge our support for our troops, especially when they are in harm's way, fighting a difficult and protracted war. But this resolution is not a show of support. It is a political tool with little substance. In fact, the only provision of substance is the third Resolved clause which ``declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.'' I happen to agree that we should not set a public deadline for withdrawal. I don't think it makes sense strategically and, even worse, I think it puts our commanders on the ground at a disadvantage because it provides the resistance with a clear target of how long they need to hold out. If we withdraw our troops prematurely, we run the risk of the young Iraqi government folding and the vacuum being filled by a government friendly to terrorists. This debate should have been about alternatives. That is a primary function of Congress. To debate our country's most important issues. I can think of no issue more important than whether we succeed or fail in Iraq. Rather than add to the vast amount of rhetoric being tossed around by both sides, I would like to present what I think needs to be done for us to succeed in Iraq, First, we must dramatically improve our intelligence operations. To be sure, the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a great accomplishment by our brave military in Iraq. But successes such as this one are too rare because most Iraqi civilians still do not feel secure enough to turn over valuable intelligence to American or Iraqi government officials. We desperately need an intelligence alliance in order to provide troops with the information they need to get the job done in Iraq. The second thing we must do to succeed in Iraq is step up the training and readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces. Congress continues to fail in its oversight of Iraqi Security Force readiness. Because it is so difficult to get a straight and consistent answer out of the Administration regarding the readiness of Iraqi Security Forces, it is virtually impossible to determine when we will be able to begin bringing American troops home. As of this week, the Administration tells us. there are 264,600 ``trained and equipped'' Iraqi Security Forces. Unfortunately the definition of ``trained and equipped'' has been elusive or not clear enough to replace American troops with Iraqi or international troops. I believe that for every fully trained Iraqi soldier, one American soldier should come home. Clearly, this isn't happening. The third thing we must do to succeed in Iraq is to continue our support of the democratically elected Iraqi government. A strong Iraqi government will be able to provide incentives to its people to help quell the violence. This support cannot be merely military support. It must be comprehensive and include the full range of services of a functioning government. Iraq's leaders face a monumental task. Quelling the violence will not be enough to send them on the path to success. Make no mistake about it; their success is closely linked to whether our mission in Iraq will be considered a success. In closing, I would like to comment on the Whereas clause in this resolution that states that it is ``the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction.'' Libya made the right decision to abandon its WMD programs. Our resolve in the Global War on Terror convinced Libya that the cost was too high to continue to pursue WMD. However, before this decision Libya was a primary state sponsor of terror. It now must honor its commitments to the victims of that terror, including the families. of the victims of Pan Am 103. In taking responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103--an attack which took the lives of 189 Americans--Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of those who died. While 80 percent of that agreement has been fulfilled, the remaining 20 percent was held back by Libya as long as it remained on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. They have now been removed from that list, and must now follow through on their agreements. Libya has renounced its weapons of mass destruction and declared its intention to be a responsible member of the community of nations. It should now make good on the remainder of its promises to the families of victims of its terrorism. With these steps, Libya will be an example of a country that has not only changed its course but has recognized its responsibility for past acts. Until it completes this journey fully and completely, doubts will remain about the nature of this regime. These doubts will be impediments to its progress as a full actor in diplomatic exchanges with the world. The United States will watch Libya's actions as well as its words. This vigilance will ensure that we will prevail in the Global War on Terror. Mr. Speaker, I will vote no on this resolution. I hope that the next time we have a debate on Iraq, it will be substantive and offer solutions. As a coequal branch of government responsible for the welfare of our courageous men and women in uniform, we should settle for no less.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the last couple of weeks and months have been times of mixed emotions for a lot of American families. Many people got the thick envelope in the mail that told them they were accepted to the school they really want to get into. And then it became time to figure out how to pay for it. Now, a few families were fortunate enough, very few families were fortunate enough, they have enough income to meet the tuition payment. Others immediately went down to the bank and made a home equity loan application to figure out a way to borrow enough money to send their son or daughter to school. Others weren't so fortunate and had to decide some other course, maybe including not going to school at all. And then others who are themselves already parents who are raising children and working full time just can't figure out a way to do it without putting themselves so far in debt that it makes no sense to get an education. This bill is a missed opportunity to address that problem. There were significant savings generated in the student loan programs that were thrown away by the reconciliation bill, the budget-cutting bill passed by this Congress late in 2005. Money that could have been used to raise loan limits, eliminate origination fees, expand programs where people can pay back their loan as a function of their income, money that could have been used to increase Pell Grants was instead put into the economic priorities of this majority: tax cuts for the very wealthy, subsidies for corporate America and misadventures around the world. So here we are feebly extending existing terms of this bill, while millions of American families struggle with the very real problem of how to pay for a higher education. This is a missed opportunity. It calls for a radical change in the country's priorities away from tax breaks for the wealthy, away from welfare for corporate America, away from misadventures around the world, toward educating and investing in the people of this country. Those changes in priorities are coming.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution because its words honor our troops, but its deeds do not. It is not at all controversial that we honor and respect the heroism of those who serve us. But they deserve so much more than the hollow words of this resolution. They deserve a plan that for the first time would achieve an intelligence alliance, it would make strikes like the one against Zarqawi on a regular basis against the leaders of the resistance. But this resolution has no plan. They deserve a real plan to fortify and improve the Iraqi security forces so as they step forward, our troops can come home. But this resolution offers no such plan. They deserve a clear path to political stability and broadening political participation so the government of Iraq is viewed as an Iraqi Government and not a tool of any outside forces. This resolution has no such plan. We are in the problems that we are in today because the administration has given us slogans, not solutions. This resolution is very much in that sorry tradition. This debate is a sham, Mr. Speaker. It is a pep rally. It is not a discussion of the alternatives before the country. So although I join the words of the resolution in praising our troops, let's move beyond the words to the deeds. The way to honor those who fight for this country is to match their sacrifice with our own wisdom. This resolution falls far short of that objective and we should oppose it.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Gerry B. Shreiber for his longstanding dedication to animal welfare and animal rights. On April 6, 2006, Gerry's family, friends, and colleagues gathered at the Mansion on Main Street in Voorhees, NJ, for the Animal Adoption Center Dinner where he was awarded the Southern New Jersey Humanitarian of the Year Award. Mr. Shreiber is the President and CEO of J and J Snack Foods Corp., which has received numerous awards in the worlds of both business and philanthropy. Gerry is an avid animal lover and contributes significant time and resources to the betterment of animals. He is currently the Director of the North American Wildlife Park Foundation and is a member of many animal welfare organizations including the World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, American Anti-Vivisection Society, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Animal Welfare Institute, Greenpeace, and PETA. Gerry has personally saved many animals' lives and currently lives on his New Jersey farm with over twenty animals. He is also active in our community at large including the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Jewish Community Center of Atlantic County, and serves on the Advisory Board at the Rutgers School of Business. Gerry Shreiber's dedication and selfless service to animals and to our greater community is an inspiration to humanitarians everywhere. I thank Gerry, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. The job of the American troops in Iraq is to fight for the cause for which we have sent them to fight, and they are doing an honorable and brave and magnificent job; and we are all proud of them and we all support them. The job of the President, as the leader of the executive branch and the Commander in Chief is to make policy decisions as to how and where to use those forces. And we have grave doubts about whether he has made the right decisions in Iraq. In fact, the record shows he has made a series of poor decisions that put the country in great trouble. But the job of the Congress is to oversee and ask the questions as to whether the policymakers in the executive branch, from the President on down, are doing the job that we want them to do. This Congress, this majority in Congress has failed to do that job, has failed to ask the questions that need to be asked: Why did the Pentagon ignore the advice of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki, and send fewer than half the number of troops that he recommended? Why did the administration ignore the advice of their own State Department experts and immediately disband the Baathist Party, the whole thing? Why did they further ignore the advice of those experts and disband the Iraqi Army, the whole thing? Why did they not guard the ammo dumps that are now providing the fire power that is making IEDs that are killing Americans every day? Why did they not properly set up supervision of the prisons so that we have the national scandal of Abu Ghraib and the grave damage it has done to the reputation of this country around the world? And I think the central question that vexes us tonight is why have we still not organized our intelligence functions on the ground such that we can't predict and stop the actions of maybe 25,000 people in a country of 24 million people? Why is it that the resistance is always a step ahead, that the ability to stop them is a rare occurrence? The fact of the matter is the Congress hasn't done the job that it needs to do because the majority is serving as a rubber stamp for the policies of the administration, rather than as a coequal branch asking the tough questions that ought to be asked. Let's start with these: Do we have the intelligence forces on the ground to figure out where the resistance fighters are, who the resistance fighters are, and what they might do next? Have we reached out to our allies in the Arab and Muslim world who deal with this problem on a daily basis to get the best of their practices and the best of their advice? The numbers of Iraqi forces, we were told before the 2004 election in this country, that several hundred Iraqi security forces were trained and ready to step up and defend their own country. Rather than growing, it seems that number is shrinking. It dropped precipitously after the 2004 election in this country. It has never been predictable. It has never been stable. It has never been measurable. The job of the Congress is to ask the hard questions and come up with the right answers. But if you deny the fact that the questions have to be asked, as the majority has, you will never come up with the right answers. You will lose the faith of the American people, and you will undercut the mission of those in the field. We support, respect, and admire the efforts of those in the field. That is why we should be asking the hard questions. I would like to yield to my friend from California who is not only asking good questions but providing some of the answers, my friend Mrs. Davis.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor West Deptford, New Jersey resident and United States Marine Corps Sergeant Brian D. Stinger for his outstanding service and heroic action while stationed in Japan. Sergeant Stinger recently received the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for saving the life of a Japanese man who caught fire while filling a generator with gas. At great risk to his personal safety, Sergeant Stinger retrieved a fire extinguisher and put out the fire. His heroic efforts saved this man's life. Mr. Speaker, the actions of Brian Stinger prove that our military service members perform acts of heroism, on and off the battlefield, every day. I applaud his brave and selfless act, and I thank him for his service to our Nation. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed one vote on June 8, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 850 (Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5252, to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services).