Floor Statements

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

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.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Andrews

Amendment No. 27: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friend from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

On page 380 of this report, the 9/11 Commission says, ``A trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with commercially available material, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit into a van like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of the World Trade Center in 1993. Such a bomb would level lower Manhattan.''

Where would people find such highly enriched uranium? Over the last 15 years, the Department of Energy and the military have been looking at 106 reactors throughout the world. In those 15 years, they have dealt with some of them, but there are 64 of these reactors left that use highly enriched uranium.

At this pace, we will have converted those reactors to less low- enriched uranium, which cannot make a bomb, by the year 2019. We need to speed that up. The purpose of this amendment is to more than double the amount of money that is dedicated to the conversion of these reactors from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium.

Last year, the President provided about $24.7 million. Our amendment adds $27 million for that purpose this year. Where do we find the money?

Well, this year's bill, which is a great bill, which I am going to support, adds about $27 million to the administrative accounts of the Department of Energy. So we take that $27 million increase in administrative costs, and we shift it towards this program of converting these potential nuclear bomb factories into low-enriched uranium.

This does not cut the administrative expenses of the Department of Energy. It simply gives the Department about the same amount that it has, actually a tiny bit more, than it has in the present fiscal year.

We need to prevent a nuclear 9/11. We will be able to convert about twice as many of these reactors from highly enriched uranium to low- enriched uranium if we adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I am going to vote for the chairman's bill is because it has those increases, but I think we need to do more.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my co-author, my friend from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

I simply would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the debate and again commend them for the increases they have in these accounts. I just respectfully believe we should do more, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed four votes on May 19th, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on defeating the Previous Question on H.Res. 821 (the Rule providing consideration for H.R. 5385--Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act); ``no'' on H.Res. 821 (the Rule providing consideration for H.R. 5385--Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act); ``yes'' on the Blumenauer Amendment (increasing appropriations for the clean up on closed military bases) and ``yes'' on H.R. 5385 (Military Quality of Life an Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act).

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on May 22, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1235 (Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005) and ``yea'' on H.R. 3858 (Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005).

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. It is my pleasure and honor to offer this amendment with him, and urge our colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, the question in this amendment is whether or not the public should pay to build more roads in the Tongass National Forest. I think the answer is no. I think the answer is no for three reasons:

First, building more roads would further put at risk what is truly a treasure, a jewel in the National Forest system. Environmentally, I think it simply makes no sense to build more of these roads.

Second, it is a terrible investment for the taxpayers. Since 1982, the taxpayers have expended $850 million more than we have taken in in revenues from this investment. In fiscal year 2005 alone, the taxpayer cost was nearly $49 million, and the taxpayer revenue was about $500,000. I don't know any of my constituents who would make an investment of $49 million in a business that is only going to return $500,000 on the investment.

Finally, building more roads in the Tongass National Forest is an unnecessary idea when it comes to the jobs

that are involved. I think that we always should be involved and concerned about the jobs of any of our fellow citizens, no matter where they are, in what region. But the fact of the matter is, the roads that already exist in the Tongass National Forest open up an area of that forest that would permit the harvesting of those trees for years and years and years to come. A substantial amount of the trees that could be harvested in that section of the forest already open to roads have not yet been harvested.

So I would urge our colleagues in both political parties to vote ``yes'' in order to preserve an important national environmental treasure, in order to continue with the jobs that are presently going on there, and, most importantly, to protect the wallets of our taxpayers. For every $100 that we spend to run the Federal Government, we only bring in $75 worth of revenue. We need to start to reduce what we spend. This is a great place to do that. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank my coauthor, and salute him for his integrity for bringing this amendment under difficult circumstances.

President Kennedy said 40 years ago or so, governing is choosing, and every time we make a choice, somebody doesn't like it. But when you avoid choices, that is how you wind up with an $8 trillion debt. That is how you wind up borrowing 25 percent of the money that you spend to run the government.

It is always easier to say yes when people want to spend the public's

money, but it is not always right; and here it isn't right. Since 1982, the taxpayers have put about $1 billion into building roads into this forest. We have gotten back $150 million. We should stop building these roads. That is what this amendment does. It does it artfully and correctly. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.