Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, this supplemental bill contains funding to support our troops in the field and resources to keep our teachers in the classroom. It also provides funding for other priorities, including strengthening our border security and relief to victims of the oil spill in the Gulf and the earthquake in Haiti. I support President Obama's request to provide our troops with the equipment and support they need for their mission. We also owe it to our troops to have a realistic strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice. The toughest decisions we face as a nation are questions of war and peace. Whenever we ask the men and women of our armed forces to put their lives at risk, the President and Members of Congress have a solemn obligation to consider all the facts and exercise their best judgment for the country. More than eight years ago, our nation was the target of a terrorist attack launched by al Qaeda operating out of Afghanistan. The United Nations unanimously passed a resolution supporting the right of the United States to respond forcefully to that attack. Our NATO allies universally backed our actions, invoking the provisions of the NATO charter stating that an attack on one was an attack on all. Today, largely because the Bush administration diverted attention and resources away from this region to Iraq, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda continue to regain strength and plot attacks against Americans from along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Bush Administration also failed to persuade Pakistan to confront the Afghan Taliban insurgents operating inside Pakistan with the support of al Qaeda. While there is no doubt that al Qaeda operates in parts of Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and other areas, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region remains the operational and ideological center for al Qaeda's global operations. The President is right to conclude that allowing al Qaeda to operate there unchecked poses a serious security risk to the U.S. and American citizens around the world. President Obama has developed a carefully considered and comprehensive ``counterinsurgency'' strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that relies not only on the use of troops but also the use of civilian resources. The strategy has four parts. First, American and NATO forces will accelerate the training and deployment of the Afghan national security forces, both army and police. This will allow U.S. forces to begin returning home starting in July of next year. Second, in the interim, U.S. and Afghan forces will reverse the Taliban's momentum by working to stabilize major population centers. Third, the strategy engages Pakistan as a full partner in these efforts. As a result of better coordination between our two countries, for the first time since the beginning of the war, al Qaeda and the Taliban are being genuinely challenged by the Pakistan military. Finally, the U.S. will work with its partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan to create a more effective civilian strategy--with the goal of establishing sustainable economic opportunities for Afghans and strengthening the country's national and local governance structures. As the 9-11 Commission determined, extremist groups exploit the poor socioeconomic conditions, such as high unemployment, in the border areas to gain adherents to their cause. With this in mind, I introduced the Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act, which will allow the President to designate Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan and allow qualified businesses duty-free access to U.S. markets for designated products. This legislation, which has passed the House and is pending in the Senate, would help create meaningful job opportunities for young people who are currently vulnerable to the lure of extremism. The President's strategy contains a timeline which initiates a responsible redeployment of American troops in July of next year. He has established this timeline to send a clear message to the Afghan government that they must take seriously their role in creating a stable Afghanistan and to communicate to the people of Afghanistan that the U.S. has no interest in an open-ended engagement in their country. During floor consideration of the bill, I supported the McGovern/Obey Amendment which would codify the president's plan to initiate a responsible drawdown of U.S. forces beginning a year from now. The amendment requires that by April 4, 2011, the president submit to Congress a redeployment plan that is consistent with the policy he announced in December 2009. While I supported the McGovern/Obey Amendment, I opposed amendments that would lead to the immediate cutoff of funds to support the president's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan would have two negative consequences. First, it would immediately strengthen the hand of the most extremist Taliban leaders (those most closely tied to al Qaeda), undercutting any leverage behind ongoing efforts to get some Taliban fighters to lay down their arms and undermining Afghan President Hamid Karzai's new initiative to reach a political accommodation with those members of the Taliban open to national reconciliation. If such a political solution is undermined and the old Taliban regime retakes control of Afghanistan, they will again turn that country into a safe haven for expanded al Qaeda operations. It would also lead to the return of an extreme Taliban regime that encourages horrendous acts like pouring gasoline into the eyes of girls who attempt to go to school. Second, an immediate withdrawal of NATO forces would weaken Pakistan's resolve to confront the Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban, and al Qaeda. The most promising development over the last year has been the Government of Pakistan's willingness to fight the growing menace of the Pakistani Taliban. In addition, very recently, the Pakistani government has also shown a willingness to confront elements of the Afghan Taliban. The capture of Mullah Bandar, the operational chief of the Afghan Taliban, and two Afghan Taliban shadow governors, demonstrates this progress. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan would sabotage those nascent efforts. Why should the Pakistani forces confront the Afghan Taliban if the U.S. walks away now? There are no guarantees of success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, we do know that failure to confront al Qaeda would leave Americans constantly exposed to another attack like that perpetrated on September 11, 2001. In addition to funding for our troops, the bill also includes $10 billion to preserve teachers' jobs--a priority for many members of Congress as well as the Administration. While I share the Administration's concern about paying for this vital relief with unexpended ``Race to the Top'' funds, I am certain the Committee would have welcomed the Administration's input to identify other viable pay- fors. To help families suffering as a result of the recession, the measure includes $4.95 billion for Pell grants and $50 million for emergency food assistance. To strengthen homeland security, the bill includes $701 million for enforcement along our southern border, including $208 million for 1200 additional Border Patrol agents. Finally, for those still suffering in the wake of the devastating earthquake in Haiti and the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the bill includes $2.9 billion and $162 million respectively. Madam Speaker, I support adoption of the FY10 Supplemental Appropriations Bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Wall Street accountability bill is very clear: Never again should the American taxpayer be asked to foot the bill for bad bets made on Wall Street. Never again should millions of Americans have to lose their jobs because of reckless conduct on Wall Street. Never again will we allow the American economy to be held hostage to bad decisions on Wall Street and in the financial sector. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't gotten that message. Having stood in this Chamber and having voted to help rescue Wall Street and the financial sector, they are not there for Main Street today. I think some headlines are instructive. The Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2010: ``GOP chases Wall Street Donors.'' ``In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving to make the case that they are the banks' best hope of preventing President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down on Wall Street.'' Roll Call, December 8, 2009: ``House GOP meets with 100 Lobbyists to plot to kill Wall Street Reform.'' ``In a call to arms, House Republican leaders met with more than 100 lobbyists at the Capitol Visitors Center on Tuesday afternoon to try to fight back against financial regulatory overhaul legislation.'' That is the story of this debate, and the choice is clear: Are we going to be on the side of the big banks, which held the American economy hostage, which resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, and which left the taxpayers on the hook, or are we going to stay on the side of the consumers, taxpayers, American workers, and small businesses? The choice is very clear. Back in December, every one of our Republican colleagues voted ``no'' on Wall Street accountability. Let's hope, this time, they stand on the side of the American taxpayer and of the American consumer and make the right choice for the American people.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this much- needed legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits through November 2010. Though we are showing signs of economic recovery, millions of Americans remain out of work through no fault of their own. Without this extension, an estimated 1.7 million individuals will lose their unemployment benefits by July 3, 2010. This legislation would help these individuals and their families by retroactively restoring the benefits that they began losing as early as the end of May. We need to help those families who are struggling to make ends meet. Protecting the middle class, rebuilding our economy, and providing job growth remains our top priority. While there has been five consecutive months of job growth, much more work needs to be done to make up for the 8 million jobs lost while we continue to rebuild the economy. We inherited an economic mess that favored corporate special interests at the expense of the middle class. And we are still cleaning up that mess. Extending these benefits is not only the right thing to do for these families, but at the same time it will help the economy as a whole. If individuals are unable to buy food and pay their mortgages or rent, the economy could slide back into recession. Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't be here if our Republican colleagues in the Senate had blocked previous legislation to extend unemployment benefits. I urge all my colleagues not turn our backs on those Americans who are out of a job and continue to struggle to find work.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman of the committee. This legislation, as we all know, by its terms says that if you're a foreign-controlled entity in the United States, you can not be spending money to influence elections. The proposal put forward here actually prohibits U.S. citizens from contributing as they're allowed to do under the Constitution, or from expending their own funds. It is blatantly constitutional. Given all the conversation we had and the resistance to the notion that we're going to prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending money, it's a little surprising we would now say that U.S. citizens can't be either contributing or spending, number one. Number two, with respect to the ban on robocalls, what this legislation has been all about is disclosure. If you're going to spend money on TV or radio or whatever for political expenditure purposes, tell the voters who you are and who's paying for it. We've been hearing all day about how you don't want to impinge on the First Amendment, and what you do here is an outright bar on legal calls made. We're just saying when you make those calls, tell us who's paying for them, tell the voters who's paying for them. Whether you like the group or whether you don't like the group, the voter has a right to know. Finally, you've injected into this motion to recommit a provision with respect to how we would deal with challenges to D.C. voting rights. As you well know, we have not even passed a piece of legislation out of this Congress on D.C. voting rights that has gone to the President's desk, and yet you've inserted that totally unrelated matter into this legislation. So it's interesting, after all the comments we heard from the other side of the aisle about the time you had to consider the DISCLOSE Act, that we got 5 minutes to look at this, but 5 minutes was more than enough time to determine that it's blatantly unconstitutional. You're not just saying inform the voter, you're denying American citizens and voters the right to contribute to campaigns, to participate freely in campaigns. You're saying that you can't exercise your legal rights with robocalls even if you're telling people who is spending it. And finally, you've injected a total spurious and unrelated provision with respect to D.C. voting rights. Let's give the voters the right to know. Let's make sure that we pass legislation so that foreign- controlled interests can not spend money in U.S. elections, whether it's British Petroleum or any other organization. And let's make sure that, whether you like the group or don't like the group, that voters have the information when they see that television set with the nice- sounding name like the Fund for a Greater America, that they have the right to get the information and judge for themselves about who's paying for it. So this is a blatant attempt to distract this effort at the last minute. Again, I point out that the League of Women Voters--that's no political organization--Common Cause, Public Citizen, all the organizations that have devoted themselves to clean campaigns and fair elections support this legislation. I urge the rejection of the motion to recommit and the passage of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, Internet Rules Remain Unchanged H.R. 5175 extends the existing rules on coordination to apply to any ``covered communication,'' and defines the term ``covered communication.'' In so doing, the bill repeats the language of the existing media exemption and incorporates that exemption into the definition of ``covered communication.'' The existing language of the media exemption has been interpreted by FEC regulation to include an exemption for media activities on the Internet. 11 CFR 100.132. By incorporating the existing language of the media exemption into the coordination provisions in the DISCLOSE Act, the sponsors intend to ensure that the media exemption in the DISCLOSE Act will be interpreted by the FEC in the same way that the FEC has interpreted the media exemption in existing law, to include media activities on the Internet within the media exemption. Independent Expenditures Influence Elected Officials Independent expenditures and electioneering communications can influence elected officials and produce gratitude, indebtedness, and access. Although such influence is not per se problematic, it may be improper in certain contexts. In particular, such influence is improper if it has the potential to affect the outcome of federal contracting decisions or if it is exercised by a foreign-controlled entity. According to a recent report by Professor Wilcox of Georgetown University, ``Donors who seek to gain access and influence care primarily that their contribution is noticed and appreciated, not that it is handled directly by the candidate's campaign treasurer.'' The report notes that contributions to groups that make independent expenditures ``can be conceived as indirect contributions--instead of giving the money directly to the candidate's campaign committee, they are given to an independent committee that also helps the candidate win.'' Indeed some experts believe that large independent expenditures on behalf of candidates can produce greater influence than direct campaign contributions that are subject to legal limits: ``With almost all of the 527s associating themselves with the two major parties and their candidates, and with the great majority of contributions coming from donors giving in the millions, rather than thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, big 527 donors today are positioned to garner more attention and consideration from parties and candidates than those who give the maximum direct contribution of $2,000-$25,000.'' In California, recent legislation limiting direct contributions has produced an ``explosion'' of independent expenditures. According to Ross Johnson, Chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and a former Republican Party leader in both houses of the California legislature, ``independent expenditures have provided sophisticated wealthy individuals and special interests the means to circumvent [contribution] limits and create the appearance of corruption, or gain undue influence on, candidates and officeholders.'' Recent examples illustrate that independent expenditures are used to try to influence elected officials. In 1998 a group with an interest in gaming issues attempted to bribe former Republican Kansas Congressman Snowbarger by signaling that they would conduct an independent spending campaign on his behalf. According to Snowbarger's campaign manager, the offer ``was an attempt to get him to change his position by offering to do independent spending that would help him win re-election.'' Congressman Snowbarger rejected the offer. His campaign manager later explained the rationale behind the proposal: ``[T]he people behind th[e] effort offered to do an independent expenditure rather than make contributions because contributions are limited. If only a small number of people are involved, they are unable to promise to give that much. Even a corrupt Congressman would not risk accepting a bribe of only $5,000.00 or $6,000.00. Independent expenditures, on the other hand, can involve sums of money of an entirely different magnitude.'' Former Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Chvala was convicted on corruption charges in 2005 for illegally soliciting funds in exchange for political favors. According to Wisconsin lobbyist Michael Bright, who lobbied Chvala on numerous occasions, ``[t]here was essentially a `menu' of different ways that clients could contribute: they could give directly to candidates in contested races, to the parties, or to groups that made independent expenditures or independent candidate-focused `issue' ads . . . These were all acceptable ways to meet Chvala's contribution expectations, to get `credit' in Chvala's world.'' (emphasis added). Chvala would indicate to interested parties that ``whichever bucket [they] put the money into, it would be used effectively to support Democratic senate candidates and would be appreciated by those candidates.'' According to Bright, ``there was not any ambiguity about it: he was suggesting that the candidates benefited would properly credit the client for the contributions no matter which entity they were made to, and the candidate would be just as appreciative as if the money had all been given directly to the candidate's campaign.'' Recent polling reveals that independent expenditures also create an appearance of influence. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 82 percent of respondents believe ``that if an individual contributed $100,000 or more to a group to spend on an advertising campaign supporting a congressional candidate it is likely that the candidate will do a political favor for the contributor once elected to office.'' The Unique Contexts of Government Contracting and Foreign Influence Although Citizens United prohibits restrictions on independent expenditures that apply to corporations and unions generally, independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors and foreign-controlled entities pose unique concerns. Congress has a substantial interest in protecting a merit- based government contracting process and in protecting U.S. interests from foreign influence, and Congress therefore has the power to regulate independent expenditures and electioneering communications in these particular domains. Independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors warrant distinct concern. Government contracting decisions should be based on an objective evaluation of how well potential contractors meet the relevant legal criteria. Elaborate federal regulations reflect this commitment to a fairly and impartially-administered contracting system. However, contractors may seek to improperly influence elected officials in order to maximize their chances of receiving contracts. Contractors may also feel pressure, whether explicitly exerted by government officials or not, to make expenditures in order to obtain contracts. A company seeking to renew an existing contract may be especially vulnerable to such pressure because it is likely to have significant reliance interests in maintaining its business relationship with the government. The need to protect the integrity of government contracting is evidenced by recent pay-to-play scandals. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan went to federal prison in 2007 for issuing state contracts in exchange for financial contributions and gifts over a period of 10 years. In Connecticut, a pay-to-play probe brought down former Governor Rowland, who admitted taking gifts from state contractors. In 1998, New Jersey awarded a seven-year, $392 million contract to Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group Inc. to privatize automobile inspections. A subsequent state investigation found that Parsons had tainted the competitive bidding process by contributing more than a half million dollars to state officials and that the ``mammoth boondoggle'' cost taxpayers an additional $200 million after the contract was awarded. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham resigned from Congress in 2005 after pleading guilty to using his official position to extract bribes from multiple defense contractors. In March, 2010, the New York state pension fund's former chief investment officer pleaded guilty to directing public dollars to firms that made political contributions to former Democratic state comptroller Alan G. Hevesi. Financial companies have so far paid $120 million in settlements to resolve their roles in the ongoing pay to play scandal. Even when a direct quid-pro-quo cannot be definitively proven, the relationship between political expenditures and contract awards can still give rise to the appearance of improper influence. For instance, a University of Michigan study found that donors to former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson's campaign were awarded an average of $20 million in contracts, while non-contributors were only awarded an average of $870,000. Independent expenditures and electioneering communications by foreign-controlled domestic corporations also warrant distinct concern. In 2005, the general treasuries of these companies totaled approximately $3.5 trillion. After Citizens United, these companies are now free to spend unlimited sums from their general treasuries to influence federal elections, and undermine U.S. interests. The DISCLOSE Act would prevent this foreign intervention in U.S. elections.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I want to start by thanking Chairman Brady, Ms. Lofgren, and the other members of the committee, as well as Chairman Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and those on the Judiciary Committee, and to Mike Castle and all the other cosponsors of this legislation, which addresses the very serious threats to our democracy created by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United States, will be treated like American citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections. This bill addresses this issue in three ways. First we say, if you're a foreign-controlled corporation--if you are British Petroleum, if you are a Chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation here in the United States, if you are Citgo, controlled by Hugo Chavez, you have no business spending money in U.S. elections overtly or secretly. And if we don't do something about that now, they will be able to do either of those things. Number two, we say if you are a Federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from the American taxpayer or you are AIG, you shouldn't be recycling those moneys into elections to try and influence the body that gave you the contracts because there is a greater danger of corruption in the expenditure of those moneys. Third, we require disclosure. We believe that the voter has the right to know. You would think from the comments from the other side of the aisle we are restricting what people can say. That is not true. You can say anything you want in any ad you want. What you can't do is hide behind the darkness, not tell people who you are. Voters have a right to know when they see an ad going on with a nice-sounding name, the Fund For a Better America, they have the right to know who is paying for it. They have a right to know if BP is paying for it. They have a right to know if any corporation or big-bucks individual is paying for it because it is a way to give them information to assess the credibility of the ad. You vote ``no'' on this, you are saying go ahead and spend millions of dollars, corporations or individuals, and say whatever you want, which is fine, but we are not going to let the voters know who you are. That is what a lot of these interests want. And the reason the League of Women Voters--no big special interest group there--League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Democracy 21, all of the organizations that have devoted themselves to clean and fair elections support this legislation because they understand that the American voter has a right to know who is spending all of these moneys on these ads, and they don't want foreign-controlled corporations dumping millions of dollars into U.S. elections. So, my colleagues, I hope we will move forward on this to make sure that the voice of citizens is not drowned out by secret spending by the biggest corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman for yielding. I just want to emphasize again, as Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, that the Supreme Court decision did open the door to foreign- controlled corporations spending money directly in U.S. elections. If you have a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation that's controlled by that corporation, when the Supreme Court essentially said all corporations could spend money directly in U.S. elections, they opened the door very clearly to that. And it's an area where it's also clear Congress can move to legislate. Number two, it's no surprise that you have lots of organizations on the right and the left--love what they stand for or hate what they stand for--that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. That's not a surprise at all. That's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean campaign elections, like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. Let me say something with respect to unions. There is no such thing as a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign union. So this is a red herring issue. Second, under U.S. law, we have never defined collective bargaining agreements as Federal contracts like those contracts that go to the corporations themselves. Number three, I draw to the attention of the body a statement that was made by Trevor Potter, President of the Campaign Legal Center, who was the Republican Commissioner on the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, from 1991 to 1995, who said, ``This bill requires funding disclosure for all election advertising--union and corporate,'' and goes on to say, ``Based on the legislative language's equality of treatment, claims of union favoritism seem to be unsupported efforts to discredit the bill and stave off its primary goal: disclosure of those underwriting the massive independent expenditure campaigns that are coming to dominate our elections.'' That's the Republican commissioner.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010. As a cosponsor of the Iran Sanctions Act, I congratulate the conferees for building on the best features of that bill, and the Senate version, to produce bipartisan legislation that moves beyond our initial focus on restricting refined oil supplies and creates sweeping and strong new sanctions on banks doing business with Iran. If Iran continues with its illegal nuclear enrichment activities, it will threaten the stability of the Middle East, threaten the security of its neighbors, including Israel, and jeopardize the international counter-proliferation regime. This bill directs the President to take additional measures to stop those efforts. The measure codifies longstanding executive orders that limit the goods exempted under the American trade embargo against Iran and includes new provisions that hold U.S. and foreign banks accountable for their actions and for the actions of their subsidiaries. Some highlights of the bill include provisions that impose sanctions on foreign insurance, financing and shipping companies that sell energy related goods and services to Iran; new prohibitions on American banks doing business with any foreign bank that facilitates Iran's illicit nuclear program; three new sanctions that prohibit Iranian access to foreign exchange in the U.S.; new prohibitions on access to the U.S. banking system; and a prohibition on property transactions in the U.S. The bill even touches on the U.S. government procurement sector by requiring a certification from a company bidding on a U.S. government contract that it is not engaged in sanctionable conduct. These new sanctions compliment efforts by the European Union, the United Nations and the Obama Administration, to create a web of restrictions designed to cut Iran off from the international financial community if it does not abandon it illicit enrichment activities. The European Union passed a sanctions package that places restrictions on Iran's trade, banking and insurance sectors in addition to instituting new prohibitions on key sectors of Iran's gas and oil industry. The United Nations Security Council passed its fourth round of sanctions against military purchases, trade and financial transactions carried out by the Revolutionary Guard, which controls the nuclear program and has taken a more central role in running the country and the economy. The Obama Administration recently placed dozens of Iranian companies and senior Iranian officials on a U.S. financial industry blacklist, appointed as a special adviser on nonproliferation and arms control Robert Einhorn, a man the Chinese government calls ``the dentist'' for the way he extracts painful concessions during negotiations, and the administration is working with the Israeli government to ensure that Iranians who are key to Iran's nuclear program and who may want to leave Iran, are able to do so. Iran's refusal to heed repeated warnings about its illegal enrichment activities must be met with resolve. All options must remain on the table. When combined with the efforts of the Obama Administration and our allies, this bill helps ensure that the president has at his disposal a full range of tools to deal with Iran. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague John Dingell today to recognize the career of Ron Gettelfinger as president of the United Auto Workers. Ron joined the union in 1964 when he was working at the Ford Motor Company's Louisville assembly plant in Kentucky and soon took on a leadership role there. He later became a member of the Ford- UAW bargaining committee and director of UAW Region 3. In 1998, he was elected UAW vice president and in 2002 he became president. Ron has been a strong advocate for his brothers and sisters--fighting for health care benefits, defending American manufacturing, and supporting labor protections in trade agreements. He guided the UAW through some of the most challenging times for the U.S. auto industry, making tough decisions to save jobs and keep the plants running. His focus has always been on Main Street--on a fair deal for American workers. I congratulate Ron on his service and wish him all the best in retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation to retroactively reverse a 21 percent payment cut for doctors in Medicare and TRICARE and update the flawed Medicare physician payment formula. Rather than the 21 percent payment cut, physicians will see a 2.2 percent update in their payment rates through November, 30, 2010. Though I would prefer a permanent, long-term solution to this problem, this legislation is necessary so that Medicare beneficiaries can continue to see their doctor of choice and access the care they need. The uncertainty of payments is causing difficulties for physicians who provide services under Medicare because their practices cannot adequately plan for the expenses they incur for treating Medicare beneficiaries. Congress needs to fix this problem in a permanent manner. The House has passed legislation this Congress that would have done exactly that. Unfortunately, it was blocked in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to support this bill before us, I also urge all my colleagues in both the House and Senate to recommit themselves to passing legislation that will permanently fix Medicare payments to physicians.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of today's legislation to give the President's bipartisan Oil Spill Commission the subpoena power it needs to get to the bottom of why the Deepwater Horizon disaster happened and what steps are needed to make sure it never happens again. For the Commission to complete its work in a timely and effective manner, it must have unfettered access to any witness, record or piece of evidence necessary to shed light on the catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf. Once we understand exactly what happened and why, we can hold the responsible parties fully accountable and take comprehensive corrective action. Since the Deepwater Horizon sank on April 22, 2010, Congress has held its own oversight hearings on the crisis and enacted legislation enabling the Coast Guard to obtain advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund in order to finance the ongoing mitigation efforts. Additionally, the House has passed legislation to strengthen the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund so that taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for the Deepwater Horizon clean up. Madam Speaker, this is necessary legislation. It has ample precedent in previous national crises. I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Alan W. Mendelsohn of the Department of the Navy, who is retiring after more than thirty-two years of faithful service to our Nation, culminating in his role as Deputy Counsel of the Military Sealift Command. During his more than thirty-two years of federal service, twenty-five of which were spent as an attorney in the Office of General Counsel supporting the Military Sealift Command, Mr. Mendelsohn has consistently demonstrated the highest level of leadership and commitment to his country. In support of the ongoing war on terror, Mr. Mendelsohn provided distinguished legal services to ensure the award of numerous significant and complex procurements, and to resolve force protection and international law issues related to civilian mariners. In particular, Mr. Mendelsohn was instrumental in the award of the heavy lift contract to return the USS COLE to the United States for repairs following its damage from a terrorist attack. Mr. Mendelsohn also demonstrated outstanding initiative in serving as a business advisor to the Military Sealift Command in the implementation of a significant realignment that has ensured that the MSC can meet the increasing needs of the warfighter at a reduced cost. Mr. Mendelsohn established himself as a respected expert in the maritime industry and was frequently asked to conduct briefings for Members of Congress and their staff on issues associated with the maritime industry, including overseas ship repair and maritime labor practices. Mr. Mendelsohn also drafted a number of legislative proposals that were enacted into law. Alan Mendelsohn has exhibited integrity, vision, dedication and civility throughout his career. The commitment and sacrifice of Americans like him enrich our Nation. I am proud, Madam Speaker, to thank Alan Mendelsohn for his honorable service to our Nation. I wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes a distinguished career of public service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, for every American seeking a job, and every small business trying to expand so they can hire them, I rise in strong support of the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 and the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010. These two pro-growth initiatives illustrate very clearly that jobs continue to be job one in the 111th Congress. Small businesses are the engines of our economy, and timely, affordable credit is very often the fuel that helps them grow. Since 45 percent of small businesses currently report inadequate credit to support their needs, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act establishes a new $30 billion fund for community banks, which will leverage up to $300 billion in new private sector lending to small businesses. Importantly, this new lending facility includes performance-based incentives to encourage near term lending by reducing borrowing costs to participating banks that increase their lending over 2009 levels and increasing borrowing costs when lending activity is reduced. The result will be a timely infusion of fresh credit to cash-strapped small businesses looking to create jobs in our growing economy. To make it easier for entrepreneurs to attract capital and launch new companies, today's legislation also provides a zero capital gains rate on equity investments in qualifying small businesses made between March 15, 2010 and the end of the year--and it quadruples from $5,000 to $20,000 the deduction small businesses can take for start-up expenditures in their first year of operation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is broadly supported by the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Majority, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association and the National Bankers Association. It is fully paid for and deserves my colleagues' support.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters for their efforts in bringing this important and necessary piece of legislation to the floor today. As a result of the economic crisis, the Federal Housing Administration had to step in to fill the void that emerged when large numbers of homeowners experienced difficulty finding private companies willing to insure their mortgages. While increasing the number of loans it insured helped the FHA put more borrowers into new homes, it also severely depleted its capital reserves--causing them to fall below congressionally mandated levels. One of the FHA's responsibilities is to provide mortgage insurance for low-income homeowners who otherwise would have difficulty accessing insurance. By providing insurance on loans made by approved lenders, the FHA has been able to guarantee the availability of inexpensive mortgages and help approximately 37 million borrowers. To insure that FHA has the resources necessary to continue performing this important function, Congress requires the FHA to maintain capital reserves of at least 2 percent. Under the economic strain of the past couple of years, these reserves have fallen well below that level. Even though the Department of Housing and Urban Development has taken significant administrative and regulatory steps to address the shortfall, as an added measure, the FHA has requested that Congress grant it the legislative authority to adjust its premium structure. The bill we are voting on today provides the FHA with new authority to raise the annual premiums it receives from new borrowers with mortgages at or below 95 percent of the home's value. If this bill passes, FHA will be permitted to raise the premiums it receives on mortgage insurance to up to 1.55 percent of the loan balance. This move should enable the FHA to raise the funds it needs to restore its capital reserves to financial healthy levels--so that it can continue providing mortgage insurance to new home owners for many years to come. Congress is committed to doing whatever it takes to get this economy going again, to get Americans back to work, to enable them to buy cars and homes and to start businesses. Our legislative efforts have taken many forms from small business tax cuts, to financial services industry reform to the measure we are considering here today. This is important legislation that will help the economy by helping many borrowers seeking mortgage insurance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable American on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Mr. Harvey Zeigler, the sixth of thirteen children, grew up amid the de facto segregation of the 1920s in Damascus, Maryland, where his grandfather settled in 1863 after escaping slavery via the Underground Railroad. Three years after graduating from an all African-American high school, on December 8, 1941 Mr. Zeigler was drafted into the United States Army. A member of the 329th segregated unit of the U.S. Army, Mr. Zeigler courageously fought for his country, only to return home to face oppressive discrimination. An early advocate of civil rights, Mr. Zeigler battled the discriminatory practices of local banks after he was denied funds for a start-up business venture because of his race. Even after securing a loan from a local bank, Mr. Zeigler continued to fight for equal treatment until all bank services were opened to all African-Americans in his community. In 1959, Mr. Zeigler was hired as a custodian for the new Atomic Energy Commission in Germantown, Maryland. After he and other minority employees were passed over for numerous promotions, Mr. Zeigler, with the assistance of the NAACP, sued the AEC. Despite overwhelming odds, Mr. Zeigler and the NAACP won the case and forced the AEC to offer African-Americans opportunities for advancement to the higher-paying skilled-labor jobs. Mr. Zeigler continued to play a critical role in his community in numerous ways. He organized Montgomery County community members' involvement in the historic March on Washington. He led protests to integrate public facilities, including movie theaters, amusement parks, and country clubs. He was instrumental in enabling African-American teachers and counselors to obtain positions in the Montgomery County Public Schools and for African-Americans to become firefighters in Damascus. Mr. Zeigler retired from federal service in 1977. In retirement, Mr. Zeigler worked tirelessly with the NAACP, leading youth services, organizing church activities, and integrating many of the United Methodist Churches in Montgomery County. Mr. Zeigler, a man of extraordinary conviction and perseverance, has been a role model throughout his inspirational life of service to our Nation and to the African-American community. His brave leadership helped to change our Nation's history in critically important ways. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Harvey Zeigler on his 90th birthday and to thank him for his courageous leadership and service to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I speak today to honor a remarkable American, Wilbur J. Cohen, on the 97th anniversary of his birth. From the programs of the New Deal to the Great Society, Wilbur Cohen was a key player in nearly every significant effort that involved social legislation. Nicknamed ``The Man Who Built Medicare,'' Mr. Cohen was responsible for improving the quality of life of millions of elderly Americans. As an acquaintance of Mr. Cohen once said, ``he feels every person in the country who is home alone sick is his personal responsibility.'' Mr. Cohen was born on June 10, 1913 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin--Madison in 1934, Mr. Cohen relocated to Washington, D.C. to pursue his dreams of public service. In short order, he became a key drafter of the Social Security Act. He then became the Director of the Bureau of Research and Statistics, which managed program development and legislative coordination with Congress for the Social Security Board--renamed the Social Security Administration in 1946. Shortly after his election, President John F. Kennedy appointed Mr. Cohen as Assistant Secretary for Legislation of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. During President Kennedy's administration, Mr. Cohen was responsible for obtaining congressional approval of over sixty-five bills. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Mr. Cohen Under Secretary and, in 1968, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. During the Johnson Administration, Mr. Cohen ensured the passage of the historic Medicare bill and the landmark education bill that granted federal aid to elementary and secondary schools. Not limiting his attention to welfare, Social Security, and Medicare, however, Mr. Cohen also dedicated his efforts to addressing the concerns of school dropouts, Indian health, consumer protection, and the budgetary needs of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, to name a few other issues of concern. Portrayed by Time magazine as a man of ``boundless energy, infectious enthusiasm, and a drive for action,'' Mr. Cohen's exemplary spirit and selfless dedication to public service have allowed countless people to live healthier and more fulfilling lives. This drive for a better America earned the support of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for the expansion of social programs to those most in need. A true visionary and a lifelong believer in social justice, Mr. Cohen was an inspiration to all Americans for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the less fortunate. On May 17, 1987, Mr. Cohen passed away, and the United States lost a great pioneer of social legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and accomplishments of Mr. Wilbur J. Cohen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill supports the efforts of American entrepreneurs and of American businesses to create jobs here at home, and at the same time, it closes down perverse tax loopholes that encourage big corporations to ship American jobs overseas. On the plus side, it invests and encourages investments in research and development by businesses right here at home, which are provisions that our colleagues have supported in the past. It invests in the very successful Build America Bonds initiative that has driven new investment in roads, in bridges, and in essential infrastructure here at home. It pays for all of these investments by eliminating a number of loopholes in the Tax Code, including a very awful loophole that encourages big corporations to export, not American products, but American jobs. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, creative corporate tax lawyers have devised a way to have American taxpayers, our constituents, foot the bill for the taxes that their corporations pay to foreign governments for their overseas operations. Think about that. We don't pay for the taxes that American corporations have to pay for jobs here at home and earnings here at home. Yet our constituents are footing the bill for taxes American corporations pay to foreign governments for jobs created overseas. That creates a terrible incentive for big American corporations to move jobs and operations away from the United States. It is a great deal for big corporations, and we understand why they want to protect those loopholes, but it is a lousy deal for American workers and American taxpayers. The choice we face here is very clear: A vote against this bill is a vote against investing in jobs in America and in favor of protecting loopholes to offshore American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support America's small businesses and America's jobs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. The bill authorizes $726 billion for defense programs, global military operations and pay and benefits for active duty military personnel, veterans and their families. As Memorial Day approaches, we are reminded of the great debt we owe to our men and women in uniform. This bill continues our commitment to them, to their civilian colleagues, and to their families for their support and sacrifice. The welfare and safety of our troops and their families is a priority of this Congress. That is why this bill authorizes funding to support not only the healthcare programs that our military personnel and their families depend on, but also the funding to ensure that our troops have the equipment and support they need for their mission. In addition to authorizing funding for training, transportation and equipment, the measure includes additional funding specifically targeted to protecting troops in harm's way. For those currently serving on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq at risk of injury from improvised explosive devices, the bill authorizes $3.5 billion for counter measures, $3.4 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and almost $1 billion to up-armored Humvees. The sluggish economy places a special burden on the limited financial resources of military families. That is why the bill authorizes an average 1.9% pay increase for military personnel and establishes a career development pilot program for military spouses. Healthcare for our troops and their families is a priority of this congress. The bill authorizes $32.4 billion for defense health care programs. This includes a one-time authorization for cash payments to severely wounded combat veterans for attendant care, an extension of health care coverage to dependent children of Tricare Beneficiaries up to age 26, and $524 million for medical research and development, including $3 million in extra funds for research in alcohol and substance abuse disorders. For those suffering from mental health problems associated with multiple deployments and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the bill also authorizes a 25% increase in the number of mental health providers for the military. According to the military, the number of military personnel who committed suicide in 2009, exceeded the number who died in combat in Afghanistan that year. This is a growing and silent killer that must be addressed. I am pleased to report that the bill also authorizes $2.5 million for the Bethesda Hospitals Emergency Preparedness Partnership which includes the Naval Bethesda Medical Center, the National Institute of Health Clinical Center, the National Library of Medicine, and Suburban Hospital, to develop plans and procedures to respond rapidly and successfully to any emergency situation in the Washington DC region. And, the measure also authorizes $5 million for the Hydrodynamic Test Facilities at Carderock to replace the wavemaking equipment at the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. These authorizations will not only strengthen our national security, they will also help create and retain good paying jobs for Montgomery and Prince George's county residents. And, finally, I support the repeal of the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Since 1994, thousands of qualified and committed service members have been fired simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in February, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, ``I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'' And, General Colin Powell, changing his long held position on Don't Ask Don't Tell recently said, ``It's been a whole generation since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased acceptance of gays and lesbians in society. Attitudes and circumstances have changed.'' We cannot afford to turn away dedicated, talented and committed soldiers just because they are gay. Though this change will not go into effect until the Pentagon completes an ongoing review due in December, and the president and secretary of defense certify that a repeal is consistent with the military's standards of readiness and effectiveness, the end of this discriminatory policy is finally in sight. Madam Speaker, this bill authorizes much needed funding for vital programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, their civilian colleagues, our veterans and to their families. I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. Over the course of our nation's history, one of our greatest strengths has been our ability to innovate. We have led the world in scientific discovery, expanding the boundaries of knowledge and thinking creatively about difficult problems. However, in recent years, we have seen our technological edge diminish as other countries increase their investment in research and development. In 2005, the National Academies released ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' warning that unless the United States made a serious commitment to science and technology, it would lose its competitive edge in the world economy. We responded in a bipartisan way in 2007 with the original America COMPETES Act, a comprehensive investment in education, research, and small business. Today's bill continues and improves upon that approach. It invests in the American innovation economy, providing the resources necessary to create good, sustainable jobs at home and ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of discovery. Importantly, this bill will double funding for basic research at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the labs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, over 10 years. This funding provides the cornerstone of our nation's research and development efforts. It is vital that we have a stable, sustainable authorization path and that we fund it reliably so that our nation's researchers know that they have dependable support for long-term projects. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act will continue to assist our nation's manufacturers and businesses by strengthening the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at NIST, providing innovative technology federal loan guarantees for small- and medium-sized manufacturers, and coordinating with community colleges to ensure that there are good, regional pipelines of workers with the skills necessary to keep business moving. The Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce will assist businesses with commercializing the results of research to speed market application of new products. The legislation also creates a new program to develop Regional Innovation Clusters, which will build up regional economies working within a given field by bolstering scientific collaboration between businesses and other entities. We will track the progress of these clusters to determine best practices for other regions. And finally, this bill continues to recognize that our nation's long term success is dependent on the strength of our education system. It coordinates science, technology, engineering, and math, STEM, education efforts across the federal government, invests in grants and scholarships for college students pursuing STEM careers, and provides resources to diversify our future STEM workforce. Mr. Speaker, I commend the House Committee on Science and Technology and its Chairman, Bart Gordon, for their excellent work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the long and productive life of my constituent, Mrs. Margie J. Claytor Smith, who celebrated her 100th birthday on March 19, 2010. Margie J. Claytor was born in Basham, Virginia on March 19, 1910, the sixth child of Harvey and Lena Claytor. She married George W. Smith on December 26, 1929 and enjoyed 37 years of marriage until her husband's death in 1966. Mr. and Mrs. Smith had two children, Gerald W. Smith and Marie Smith Wise. Following her husband's death, Mrs. Smith lived with her son and helped to raise her five grandchildren: Gerald W. Smith, Jr., Susan R. Smith, David T. Smith, Scott W. Wise, and Cecelia Wise Howard. Mrs. Smith now also has four great-grandchildren: Jon B. Howard, Bryan F. Smith, Aaron T. Smith, and Clo'e M. Smith. She became fond of camping and, in fact, she and her family have camped in 38 states and three Canadian regions. Her efforts throughout her life were honored by being named the National Council of Negro Women's first ``All Star Senior.'' Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mrs. Margie J. Claytor Smith and the contributions she has made to her family and to her community.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise as an original sponsor of H. Res. 1187 with my colleague Mr. Moran. This resolution recognizes the contributions of our federal employees and supports the goal of protecting their safety and security. It is a federal crime to assault or forcefully interfere with a federal employee while they are engaged in their official duties. Yet, between 2001 and 2008, there were more than 1,200 attacks made on just IRS employees alone. The most recent incident involved a pilot flying a small plane into an IRS office complex in Austin, Texas, killing Vernon Hunter, a Vietnam veteran and IRS employee. The Federal workforce is comprised of millions of employees who provide every kind of public service from fighting crime and fires, to protecting health, to preserving the environment and securing our borders. These dedicated public servants deserve our support, respect and protection. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to express our appreciation to federal employees for the work they do, and to urge the government to seek out ways to ensure their safety.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the House version of this resolution, I stand in strong support of S. 1067. This measure expresses the frustration of many members of Congress who feel that efforts to disarm the Lord's Resistance Army and to bring its members to justice are progressing too slowly. The LRA is currently branded a terrorist organization by the U.S. government for perpetrating two decades of violence in Uganda, Sudan, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the ``spokesperson'' of God and a spirit medium, the LRA is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in northern Uganda and Congo and the displacement of 2,000,000 more. This resolution requires the president to develop a comprehensive strategy to guide future U.S. support across the region to mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA. It requires that the strategy include a plan to bolster the efforts of the United Nations and regional governments with the goal of protecting civilians and strengthening regional institutions. Additionally, the resolution recommends that an interagency framework be developed to plan, coordinate and review the diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military elements of U.S. policy across the region. Finally, the measure expresses the sense of Congress that $10 million should be provided in FY 2011 for assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo, southern Sudan, and Central African Republic to help them respond to the humanitarian needs of populations directly affected by the activity of the Lord's Resistance Army. For 20 years, the LRA has led a bloody campaign of murder, abduction, sexual enslavement and mutilation across central Africa. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping to establish a stable and lasting peace in northern Uganda and other areas affected by the LRA.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, I rise in strong support of the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. As we work to develop and deploy new forms of clean, homegrown energy, we must never lose sight of this central fact: There is no cleaner, cheaper source of energy than the energy you never have to use. Energy efficiency is literally America's greatest energy resource. Over the past thirty years, energy efficiency and conservation improvements have significantly outpaced our production and import of petroleum and any other single source of energy. Going forward, we can do even better, and this initiative is part of that future--creating 168,000 jobs across the United States, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 4.14 metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 767,000 cars off the road, and saving Americans $9.2 billion on their energy bills over the next decade. Finally, in addition to the Silver and Gold level rebates provided to homeowners under this bill, this initiative also includes the establishment of a Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program so that states and localities can provide low-cost financing to homeowners wishing to undertake retrofits. While on a smaller scale, this provision is consistent with the Green Bank proposal included the House-passed energy bill and can go a long way towards overcoming the lack of upfront capital that is currently a barrier to many homeowners getting started on making these commonsense improvements in the first place. Madam Chair, this combination of jobs, energy savings and consumer relief is a perfect trifecta for the American people. I thank my colleague Representative Peter Welch for his leadership on this issue, commend the committee for bringing this bill to the floor and urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speker, I stand today to recognize the National Urban League for its century of civil rights leadership and for its dedication to ensuring that all Americans enjoy the benefits of equal justice and economic empowerment. Since 1910, the National Urban League has worked to elevate the living standards of American families in historically underserved urban areas. The Urban League was founded to advocate on behalf of the tens of thousands of African Americans who began migrating to northern American cities in the early 20th century. Committed to social justice and equality, the Urban League worked to empower these men and women, many of whom had fled the Jim Crow south for the north to escape economic, social and political oppression only to find few employment opportunities, limited access to education and substandard housing. For a century, the Urban League has fought tirelessly to see that all Americans, regardless of race, have equal access to a good education, a good living wage, and safe and affordable housing. With appreciation for a century of service to the American people, I wish the National Urban League continued success for the years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5160, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation and urge its immediate enactment to support the ongoing recovery efforts in Haiti. In January, a massive earthquake struck the country of Haiti, killing hundreds of thousands of people and displacing millions more. The quake devastated the country's infrastructure which continues to make the delivery of humanitarian assistance difficult. It is well known that Haiti is the poorest, least developed country in the Western Hemisphere and that the vast majority of Haitians earn less than $2 a day. Helping Haiti permanently recover from this crisis while also strengthening an already struggling Haitian economy will require more than humanitarian assistance--the Haitian people will need jobs. The bill we consider today is an effort to aid job promotion in the country's important textile industry. This measure extends the trade benefits Haiti enjoys under the Caribbean Basin Trade Promotion Act and increases Haitian admission quotas on apparel destined for U.S. markets. This effort, when combined with the Haiti Debt Relief Act which passed in March, should help relieve some of the economic burden on the Haitian people and give them the freedom and the tools they need to begin rebuilding their nation.