Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), whose capital area response plan has set the model for how to go about this regional planning and serves as an example to others.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of efforts that have been taken to address the concerns of the private security industry in the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Under the wise guidance of the Judiciary Committee leadership, provisions have been included in this bill that will have a positive effect on the overall dependability of private security services. While I would contend that these provisions do not go far enough, they are a clear improvement, and I urge my colleagues to support their inclusion in the law. The relevant provisions, which were included in H.R. 10 with industry-wide support, allow private security guard companies to have access to federal background checks unless prohibited by their home state, and also provide for the creation of a national clearinghouse to be used in processing these requests. Federal background checks will ensure a safer, more secure private security industry, and will allow private security companies to protect themselves against the increased liability that could come with hiring an individual with a relevant criminal history. In addition, the realization of the national clearinghouse is absolutely essential, given the excessive delays that are often incurred within the varied state systems that are currently used in processing these background check requests. While allowing private security companies to receive criminal background information on prospective employees through a streamlined process is certainly a positive development, I contend that more should be done to secure this vital industry. Background checks should be required for all private security guards, to ensure that dangerous criminals and terrorists are never employed in positions of such power and responsibility. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for their efforts in addressing this important issue, and I hope to continue working with them in the future to ensure that all of our nation's assets are adequately secured.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his efforts. I also thank Mr. Dozor from the gentleman's staff, and Mr. Knotts from mine for their great effort.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for offering this amendment. His wealth of experience on the front lines in the first responder community shows, once again; and I am honored to join with him in this amendment. I thank the gentleman for his years of dedication to first responders in this country, long before Members talked about them on this floor. The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I share a geographic area. Our districts are separated only by a river. If, God forbid, there were a terrorist attack, a mass crime, a natural disaster, his constituents and mine would be responsible for responding to it. We are proud of the fact that locally in our area there is cooperation. But the fact of the matter is cooperation now happens by accident, not by design; and our amendment is to change that. It requires that the director of FEMA do three things: first, that the director of FEMA catalog examples of cooperative agreements and compacts around the country. Second, it requires that the FEMA director issue guidance on best practices, what is working. We are going to hear from the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) talk about the capital area plan that is working very, very well. Thirdly, it requires an up-to-date accessible inventory of Federal resources that would be available. In the golden hour that takes place after such an attack or disaster, we do not have weeks or months to study a problem. The chiefs on the ground have to decide right there and then what to do. By making this resource available to them, I think we will save lives and minimize disaster. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will vote a resounding ``yes.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for yielding me time. I would like to congratulate and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for their outstanding leadership. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) will be missed. I know he will contribute to this country in many ways in the future. The underlying bill represents a squandered opportunity to advance a consensus of the 9/11 Commission's report. The Menendez substitute represents that consensus, and it ought to be adopted. The 9/11 Commission said that one of the flaws that led up to the 9/ 11 attack was that our intelligence agencies did not have incentives to share information with each other. The Menendez substitute provides those incentives. The underlying bill does not. The 9/11 Commission acknowledged the fact that terrorists will strike a variety of targets. It acknowledged the fact that 90 percent of the critical infrastructure of this country is in private lands, nuclear power plants, chemical plants and other such facilities. The Menendez substitute picks up the 9/11 Commission's report and requires an analytical toughening of our defenses of that critical infrastructure. The underlying bill ignores that problem. The 9/11 Commission report pointed out the travesty that on 9/11 police officers and fire fighters in New York City literally could not talk to each other because of the problem of the interoperability lacking among first responders. The Menendez substitute directs that that problem be fixed and funds it as per the 9/11 Commission. The underlying bill does not. This bill will be back before us as a conference report. I hope that a strong vote for the Menendez substitute will add impetus for that conference to add here to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report and fix these problems. Let us not squander an opportunity to advance a national consensus as set forward by Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton. Let us advance that consensus tonight by voting ``yes'' on the Menendez substitute.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if you had a leaky faucet and your plumber told you it was going to cost $150 to fix the leak, you would not go out and put a $100,000 second mortgage on your house. That is what this bill does. We had a $4 billion problem, a very real and serious problem with respect to trade with our European allies and trading partners. What we now have to fix that $4 billion problem is a $140 billion raid on the Treasury. I know we are going to be told that this bill is paid for. That is an incredible fiction, it is a delusion, because most of the way this bill is paid for is to assume that the tax breaks that are enacted in this bill will be repealed in a couple of years when they expire. You could make a fair amount of money if gambling were legal betting that that would not happen and it will not happen. It is bad enough that we are going to reach into the Social Security trust fund again and we are going to reach out to foreign creditors again to borrow the money for these tax breaks; but when you look at what they are for and what they are not for, the bill becomes even more odious. What they are for in large part, $42 billion worth of tax breaks for American firms to support their overseas operations. I want to repeat that. At a time when virtually everyone except apparently the Secretary of Labor thinks that the outsourcing of jobs is a major problem in this country, this bill is going to borrow $42 billion to reward American companies for creating jobs outside of the United States of America. That is pretty bad. What makes it even worse is the choice that this bill makes not to do as the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about a few minutes ago. There was an effort in this bill to provide tax relief for employers who voluntarily pay full salaries to members of the National Guard and the Reserve serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. So an employer who voluntarily says that he or she is going to keep paying a Guardsmember or a Reservist while he or she is overseas was going to get some help. That was taken out of the bill. What was left in was the tax breaks for the sonar detection of fish. I have a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the sonar detector would very clearly detect a fish here. It is a rotten fish. It does not smell very good at all. This is a bill that borrows money for the wrong reason. The rule should be amended so we could fix these problems in the bill. I oppose the rule and would urge my colleagues on both sides to do so.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his help and cooperation and that of his very fine staff; the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and his fine staff; and my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), for her help and support. Most especially I would like to say to my coauthor, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), it has been a pleasure to work with him on a commonsense approach to solving a problem that is a wave of the present. The law dates back 16 years, but the technology is changing every minute. What seems to be a simple change in this bill I think will have a profoundly positive effect on businesses, small and large, around the country. As we have an increasingly diverse workforce with people from all over the world enriching our economy and our country, that workforce carries with it the responsibility to maintain records on the legal status of various workers. The maintenance of those records is burdensome, expensive and done in an ungainly way, an unseemly way in some cases, under present law. The purpose of our bill is to make it much more simple. We say to employers that at their option they may retrieve these documents and create these documents and store these documents on electronic records rather than paper records. It is a small improvement for business, but I think it is a significant improvement that will make the records more accurate, more accessible, less burdensome to maintain and less expensive to maintain. This is how business ought to be done here. I again thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for his leadership on this and all others on both sides of the aisle. I would urge our colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the draft, and I understand the reason why we are having this debate. What I do not understand is when are we going to have the debate about the flawed intelligence that led up to the war. When are we going to have the debate about the disregard of the recommendation of General Shinseki and now Ambassador Bremer? When are we going to have a debate about a failure of international negotiations to bring more coalition partners in? This is a worthy debate, but it is not worthy of the sacrifice that these men and women are making around the world. Let us have a real debate about the real issues that confront us in Iraq.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC. For over fifty years, AIPAC, acknowledging that the security interests of Israel and the United States are intertwined, has worked diligently to strengthen the relationship between Israel and the United States. They have educated members of Congress and the public alike on the issues that Israel faces in its quest to remain a stable, democratic ally to the United States in a part of the world where such nations are scarce. Even in the face of the ongoing unrest in Israel, AIPAC continues to work tirelessly towards an end to terrorism, and an achievement of peace and security in the region. In recent weeks, our friends at AIPAC have been the subject of allegations that question their dedication to the preservation of national security within the United States. Accusations such as these, which lack substantial credible proof behind them, have no positive effect. These baseless claims make it impossible for AIPAC to defend themselves, and uphold the favorable reputation that they have earned through their efforts. In this case, such charges also threaten to intensify the plague of anti-Semitism that AIPAC has tried to fight throughout its history. It has been my experience that AIPAC and its members care deeply about the collective security interests of the United States and Israel, and I continue to stand by them in their noble efforts.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Daniel Craig Myers, a young man who embodies the American principles of hard work, dedication to one's family, and service to one's country. He exudes positive energy and spirit, even through troubled times, which radiate to friends, family, community, and country. Daniel Myers has been exceptionally active in his local high school: leading his fellow students as part of the student government; participating in numerous school activities; and receiving numerous awards for brilliant academic success. Daniel graduated from Fowlerville High School on June 6, 2004 with honors as Magna Cum Laude. Daniel's service to his community as part of the Order of DeMolay has been tremendous. He has been involved in his state's DeMolay since 1997, and has held numerous offices. This past August, Daniel was elected as the 69th State Master Councilor of Michigan, the highest elected position possible in the state's DeMolay. Elected by his peers, the State Master Councilor is responsible for representing hundreds of members throughout the state, and overseeing all local chapter activities. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Daniel C. Myers today for his dedication and leadership within his community. Daniel is an inspiring role model for the young people of this country, and I wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the conference report. A few minutes ago, my friend from Arizona said we should talk about what the bill does. Here is what the bill does. It does some very desirable and popular things for taxes for families in the country, which is good; and it pays for those tax reductions by borrowing $146 billion from the Social Security trust fund and from creditors who will collect those debts from our children in the future. Now, there was another way to do this. The other way to do this would have been to make a modest reduction in the tax cut that the people at the very top of the income scale would have gotten. We had an amendment that would have said let us just marginally reduce, somewhat reduce, the tax cut that the people at the top 2 percent or so get and let us pay for the tax cut that way and not reduce the deficit. We were not permitted a vote on that idea. So the choice is, deliver these popular tax benefits by borrowing the money to pay for them or not deliver them. It is a difficult choice. I come down on the side of saying we cannot deliver them by borrowing the money. I hear my friends talk about restraint of spending. Earlier this year we had an omnibus appropriations bill that spent more than $800 billion. Only 83 Members voted ``no.'' I was one of the 83 Members. That was a bad political vote because the bill had lots of things in it that people liked; but because I did not want us to borrow the money, I voted ``no.'' Tonight, we have a choice where there are all kinds of popular tax breaks for people. It is a bad political vote to vote ``no.'' I am going to vote ``no'' because we should not borrow the money to do this. People do not trust American government anymore. This is why, because we tell people that they can have everything and not pay for it. Stand for integrity and vote ``no.''

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Carole Wood as a 2004 recipient of the Mary Philbrook Public Interest Award. This award is given annually by the Women's Law Caucus and the Association for Public Interest Law, in cooperation with the Rutgers University Law School and its Alumni Association, to acknowledge gifted, dedicated individuals who contribute outstanding work on behalf of social justice and equality. Ms. Wood currently serves as the Immigration Coordinator at the Camden Center for Law and Social Justice. She has spent much of her career as a devoted advocate for indigent immigrants, beginning first with her work as a VISTA volunteer following her graduation from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From there, she went on to serve as supervising immigration attorney at Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, where she not only represented clients, but also trained attorneys and assisted community groups in their efforts. In addition to her current role at the Camden Center, which includes working with clients, training attorneys, and supervising students at the Rutgers Immigration Pro Bono Project, Ms. Wood is the Southern Regional Coordinator for the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network and the regional representative on statewide committees, a Lead Trainer for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, an extremely active member in the National Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and a member of the Diocese of Camden's Racial Justice Committee. I have also had the honor and privilege of working with Ms. Wood personally. She has proved extremely responsive in the context of emergency constituent cases with which my district office has dealt and has been more than willing to share her vast knowledge of immigration law with my staff in their efforts to aid my constituents. Additionally, over the past several years, she has proved invaluable in her efforts to assist my district office with the process of restructuring our immigration casework system. She has devoted considerable time to reviewing our existing system and meeting with the relevant staff in my office to modify the casework procedures to meet the new standards of the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Her suggestions and expertise were also instrumental in assisting my efforts to dramatically expand the BCIS presence in South Jersey; now, individuals needing the agency's services do not have to travel long distances to other parts of the state to have access to them. It is this dedication and assistance on the part of Ms. Wood that demonstrated to me why she was worthy of my personal nomination for this award. Mary Philbrook, for whom the award is named, was the first woman admitted to the New Jersey Bar and a founder of the state's first statewide legal aid society, as well as an eminent leader in the efforts for women's suffrage and the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. It is in this tradition that the award is given each year, and it is clear that Ms. Woods' work has made her more than worthy of this recognition. She truly has demonstrated the difference that one person can make in the lives of others, and I offer her my congratulations and best wishes in her future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Judith Berstein-Baker as a 2004 recipient of the Mary Philbrook Public Interest Award. This award is given annually by the Women's Law Caucus and the Association for Public Interest Law, in cooperation with the Rutgers University Law School and its Alumni Association, to acknowledge gifted, dedicated individuals who contribute outstanding work on behalf of social justice and equality. Ms. Bernstein-Baker currently serves as the Executive Director at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia, which works to ensure the protection and fair treatment of immigrants and refugees, to assist such persons in their efforts to become productive members of society, and to educate the larger community about the positive ways in which new Americans contribute to society. She brings to this position a lifelong commitment to fighting poverty and prejudice. Born to a Jewish immigrant who had fled Poland to avoid persecution, she worked first as a social worker helping to organize communities and improve neighborhoods. Ms. Bernstein-Baker went on to graduate from Temple University Law School, as well as to serve as Counsel to the Support Center for Child Advocates and to found the nationally-known Public Service Program at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continues to contribute valuable leadership in the field and has done notable federal appellate work as well. Mary Philbrook, for whom the award is named, was the first woman admitted to the New Jersey Bar and a founder of the state's first statewide legal aid society, as well as an eminent leader in the efforts for women's suffrage and the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. It is in this tradition that the award is given each year, and it is clear that Ms. Bernstein-Baker's work has made her more than worthy of this recognition. She truly has demonstrated the difference that one person can make in the lives of others, and I offer her my congratulations and best wishes in her future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, on this discussion of taxes that we keep hearing about, my friend from Wisconsin, when he raised taxes. And he can correct me if I am wrong about this, but every time he has attempted to make an amendment in order on these appropriations bills, in committee and here, and when he was permitted to have an order, a vote that would have amended the budget resolution, every time, if I am not mistaken, the bottom 99 percent of American families would not have had their taxes raised at all. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) if that is correct.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it is also my understanding that to the extent that we have talked about restoring the tax rates that were in effect in 2001, a tax code which by the way created 22 million new jobs in the last decade, that the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) proposal simply reclaimed a portion of the tax cut that people in that top 1 percent would have received. In other words, even under the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) proposals, they would get a tax cut because the amount reclaimed was less than the amount received. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) if that is correct.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I also want the Record to reflect this choice: As our constituents sit in traffic tonight, as they cannot get home because of suburban sprawl and the lack of mass transit, as they cannot deal with the many, many problems they have, the majority has made a choice and its choice is a huge tax reduction for the top 1 percent of the people in the country or an honest choice which we would make which we would say, the top 1 percent could do without that huge tax reduction. Let us not raise taxes on the other 99 percent and meet the needs of this country. That is the real choice. I understand why the majority wants to obscure it because they are making the wrong choice.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Seventy-six years ago, the Congress passed and the President signed a law which says that if you work more than 40 hours a week, that you get time and a half for that additional time. With some carefully reasoned and well- thought-out exceptions since then, it has been the law for every American worker under every circumstance. We have before us today the question of whether we should continue that very important principle. We should, and Members on both sides should vote in favor of the Obey amendment. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said a few minutes ago, there are officially 8 million Americans out of work as we meet this afternoon. Three million of those Americans have been out of work so long they have exhausted their unemployment benefits. The price of health care has increased by 50 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. This administration will be the first administration since that of Herbert Hoover that has lost more jobs than it has created. Mr. Chairman, 2.45 million workers in manufacturing plants around the country have seen their jobs go overseas or south of the border, probably lost forever. The price of heating your home, driving your car, and educating your children rises, and the squeeze on the middle class intensifies. So what issue does this Congress and this administration confront? The issue we confront is taking income away from 6 million people. These are not 6 million people who are at the high end of the American labor force. In the debate on these regulations, we have heard this is about highly skilled, highly compensated people. Not the case. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan objective arm of this institution, did an analysis of the people who will be affected by these overtime regulations. Nearly 70 percent of the workers who will be affected by these regulations make less than $1,000 a week. Nearly 70 percent of the people affected by these rules are making less than $50,000 a year. This is the middle class we are talking about. It is the working middle class. It is nursery school teachers, short-order cooks, people who work in the shoe department of a retail store. Their biggest problem, with all due respect, is not that they are getting too much income; it is that they are not getting enough, and they are not getting enough to pay the bills that their family needs to pay. These overtime rules will adversely affect 6 million American workers. If there are going to be changes to the overtime rules, they should be debated here. They should be voted on by the people's representatives, not by the appointed people who work in the Department of Labor. The Obey amendment will suspend these rules. It will protect the overtime rights of more than 6 million American workers. It will leave in place the existing overtime rules as it affects those workers, and it is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the authors of this overtime policy change, overtime is not a gift from America's employers; overtime is the right of America's workers. In order to protect that right and to do what is right, I would urge my friends, both Republican and Democrat, to vote ``yes'' on the Obey amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the Wheatland Tube Company, headquartered in Collingswood, New Jersey, as a recipient of the National Outstanding Employer of Veterans Award from the American Legion and the Disabled Veterans of America. This award was presented on September 1, 2004 at the American Legion's 86th National Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. The award, given to a select number of firms each year by the 2.7 million member American Legion, is designed to recognize ``an exceptional record in the employment of veterans,'' and committed efforts to give veterans consideration in employment and job training opportunities. Over the past several years, Wheatland has demonstrated considerable dedication to this cause, working closely with the Mercer County, Pennsylvania Career Link program to provide an accessible system through which veterans have access to employment, education and training resources. No one is more deserving of assistance in securing employment than those brave men and women who give of themselves for the defense of our country. Their training, discipline, and resourcefulness serve as invaluable assets for companies across the country, and I am proud to recognize one such company in my district who has made special and notable efforts in the field. I congratulate the Wheatland Tube Company again and wish them best of luck in their future endeavors in this area and beyond.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I think most Americans, Mr. Chairman, would be shocked to know that information about their pension which they own is not available to them at the same time it is available to a government agency. When the President speaks about Social Security, he is fond of talking about trying to create accounts which are private property of citizens so that we can know what is ours. Pensions are already private property of citizens. When one contributes to a pension fund, or their employer contributes on their behalf to their fund, they own it. But under the present law, one of the more remarkable laws that we have on the books, if the pension fund that one's employer sponsors is in trouble, if it looks like it is going to be unable to pay benefits because its costs are exceeding its revenue, and it looks like the fund might crash so that the Federal Government, under the jurisdiction of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, will have to step in and make the pension fund whole, the law says that one's pension fund has to tell the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that it is in trouble, and it has to disclose the nature of that trouble. So this government agency gets this information about one's pension fund being in trouble and their check being in jeopardy. Believe it or not, there is a statute that says once this government agency has this information that a person's pension is in trouble, it cannot tell him. We do not understand that. We think if someone works for a company, and is counting on their pension being delivered, and has contributed to that pension, and has had the employer contribute to that pension, and the pension is in jeopardy so much that the trustees of the fund have to report that trouble to a government agency, we think that the citizens, the pensioners themselves, have a right to know. That is what the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment does. It prohibits the administration, prohibits the executive branch, from enforcing this secrecy law. One's pension should not be held secret from them if they are an employee or a citizen or a future pensioner. That is what this says. It is my understanding that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said, in fact, the administration supports this change, wants this information to be made public. I do not believe this is a partisan issue. I think that responsible Members on both sides of the aisle would understand that if their pension is in trouble, they ought to have a right to know it, not later after the pension fund has failed and they do not get their check, not after it is too late to do something about it, as was in the case of the Enron and WorldCom employees, but now, as soon as it is timely, so they can do something about it. So if the Members believe, as I think people on both sides of the aisle do, that someone's pension is their property, and if they believe, as I think people on both sides of the aisle do, that they have the right to know about the dynamics and phenomena happening about one's own property, and if they believe that some government agency has the right to know what is going on with their pension and they should, too, if they believe those things, then they ought to vote for the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) amendment. It is an idea that is supported, to my understanding, by the administration. I hope it would be supported by both sides of the aisle here. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Joal E. Wolf. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf distinguished himself as the Commander of the 3401st Military Intelligence Detachment and Chief of Staff of the Iraq Intelligence Task Force and Iraq Working Group of the Joint Staff at the Defense Intelligence Agency from April 2001 to May 2004. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf led daily operations in providing cutting-edge and time-critical assessments and trend analysis on military activity in and around the Iraqi theater in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf's leadership ensured over 4,000 tasks were completed efficiently and delivered timely to senior military and civilian leaders in the Department of Defense, White House and Congress. These intelligence products contributed significantly to the shaping of our national security policy and military planning, especially in the areas of infrastructure, economics, war crimes, sensitive site exploitation, anti-Coalition militants, weapons of mass destruction, and Coalition force protection. Lieutenant Colonel Wolf led his detachment to eclipse a bold 200 percent increase in production and in creating the Iraqi ``55 Most- Wanted'' deck of cards. For his service, Lieutenant Colonel Wolf was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal on May 28, 2004. In addition to being a fine military officer, Joal is also my brother-in-law and a small business owner. Joal is the proud son of Mrs. Phyllis M. Wolf, a veteran of the United States Army, and the late Dr. Alan E. Wolf, who was also a veteran of the United States Army. My relation to Joal has allowed me to closely follow his selfless service and better understand the sacrifices that thousands of reservists and Guardsmen are making in the war against terrorism. I am personally grateful to Joal and all of the brave men and women in our military who are making tremendous sacrifices to serve our Nation during this difficult time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as the Administration continues to negotiate with the government of Libya regarding the U.S. sanctions that still remain in place, it is vitally important that the interests of the Pan Am 103 victims' families be kept in mind. As all of my colleagues surely recall, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, devastating numerous families throughout the country. For over 15 years, the families of the 270 victims, including 189 Americans, have waited for justice. Given that the Libyan government has admitted responsibility for this horrific attack, the sought-after justice must include a substantial penalty to be paid by this government. To this end, an agreement was reached whereby the Libyan government is to pay each family a substantial sum, in stages, as certain criteria are met. In order for the next stage of compensatory damages to be released to the families, the United States must lift two executive orders, one which has frozen Libyan assets in the U.S., and another which prohibits Libyan airflights to and from the U.S. A deadline has been set at the end of this month, and if these executive orders are not lifted by that date (and there is no extension of this deadline), then the families will not receive this portion of the compensation, and it will be returned to the Libyan Government. Let me be clear, the families are not concerned with the money. Rather, they want to ensure that the Libyan government is fully punished for the attack that claimed the lives of their loved ones. I wish to also state that the families are not necessarily advocating for all of these sanctions to be removed. If the U.S. decides as a matter of policy that they want these sanctions to remain in place permanently, they will support this decision. What the families do not want to see happen, however, is for the deadline to pass, thereby denying the families their just compensation, only to have the sanctions lifted a short period later. The Pan Am 103 families have waited far too long to be left standing in the cold, and they should not be made to watch justice slip away. The State Department and the Administration are to be commended for their efforts in these negotiations thus far, and I urge them to keep the Pan Am 103 victims and families in mind as they proceed towards further resolution.