Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for his leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee and for our national security interests around the world, and I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Lantos, and the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their bipartisan support in sending a strong message to the government of Iran that their actions are absolutely unacceptable and to pass this legislation to immediately and unconditionally release the Americans of Iranian descent that are being held by the government of Iran. It was on May 30 of 2007, just a few weeks ago, the day after Washington and Tehran held their high profile talks with respect to Iraq that Iran turned around and charged three Iranian Americans, one academic, Haleh Esfandiari, a social scientist, Kian Tajbakhsh, and a journalist, Parnaz Azima, with spying, a charge which under Iran's Islamic law is punishable by death. These trumped up charges are absolutely ridiculous. Haleh Esfandiari is a constituent of mine. She lives in Bethesda, Maryland. She is a 67- year-old Director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Kian Tajbakhsh is a respected social scientist who is consulted by George Soros' Open Society Institute at the World Bank, and Parnaz Azima is a Radio Farda journalist. The government of Iran accused these Iranian Americans of endangering state security and fomenting a, quote, soft revolution. These are ridiculous charges under any circumstances and clearly an excuse by Iran to once again take action in violation of international law. Just to emphasize the point, Ms. Esfandiari is someone who has invited scholars and statesmen from Iran to the United States to conferences and events and has even been criticized by some members of the Iranian American community for being too soft on the current regime in Tehran. Mr. Tajbakhsh has consulted directly for the Iranian government and, working with the Open Society Institute, helped run its humanitarian health outreach program in Iran with full cooperation of the Iranian government. The lists of foreign detainees doesn't stop there. Iranian American businessman Ali Shakeri, who is on the board of the University of California at Irvine's Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, was arrested on May 8 as he returned to the United States from visiting his ill mother, who died during his stay. These detainees have dedicated their lives to building bridges between the Americans and the people of Iran. Their presence in Iran to visit their parents or to conduct humanitarian work poses absolutely no threat to the people or the government of Iran. Their detention is a gross perversion of the rule of law. And the claim that the Iranian government has made that they seek dialogue and improved relations with the West is belied by the actions they have taken with respect to these individuals. So we call today upon the Iranian government to do as they say they want to do, which is to have a better relationship with the United States and the people of the United States and to immediately, unconditionally release these Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Rachel Carson and to commemorate her 100th birthday this Sunday, May 27. Rachel Carson was an author, environmentalist, scientist, and poet. She was also a person with the courage to speak out against policies that harmed the environment. In 1945, the U.S. Government was increasingly using chemical pesticides to control pests that were harming agricultural crops. Rachel Carson, living in Silver Spring at the time, was particularly alarmed by insecticide experiments in Patuxent, MD. She worried that the Government was using pesticides indiscriminately, with little regard for the damage they might cause to unintended targets, like other wildlife, or people who would eat the crops. In 1957, her concerns became reality. Spraying for mosquitoes in Massachusetts, covering Long Island with a mixture of DDT and fuel-oil to eradicate the gypsy moth, and a chemical war against fire ants in the South--all of these caused the widespread death of other animals in the areas. Ms. Carson, a former scientist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with a Masters degree in Zoology, and the author of two previous books, wrote a third, Silent Spring, about the pesticide problem. She described the issue in vivid terms--a happy town struck by a ``strange blight'' that stopped the birds from flying and silenced their voices. Her message was not accepted quietly. Even the idea of the book, before it was published, was enough to cause the chemical industry, with the support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to work to discredit Ms. Carson. She was called a ``hysterical woman'' and threatened with lawsuits. Her meticulous scientific work was described as ``oversimplifications,'' ``downright errors,'' and ``scary generalizations.'' However, Rachel Carson did not back down from a fight. Even as she was battling cancer, Ms. Carson testified before Congress, stood up for her research and her work, and, with her eloquent words and confidence in the science behind them, rallied millions of Americans to her side. Rachel Carson helped begin the modem environmental movement by helping Americans relate to complicated scientific issues. She also forced the Government to consider that even potentially beneficial practices like eliminating the bugs that ate our crops could have dangerous environmental effects. Her stand paved the way for others to join the cause. She spoke the first ``inconvenient truth.'' When she died, she left a legacy for us to carry. The pesticide problem did not end with Silent Spring. Our environment is not safe from dangers. Agricultural run-off, sprawl and logging, and of course, global warming, are persistent threats that we must face with the same courage and tenacity Rachel Carson showed 40 years ago. This year, Congress is prepared to meet those challenges head on. We are developing comprehensive global warming legislation to curb pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We all have the responsibility to follow Rachel Carson's example to be stewards of our environment and natural resources. We must ensure that we and the generations that follow us can, as Ms. Carson advised, ``dwell among the beauties and mysteries of the earth.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I also urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit. During the earlier discussion, Mr. Smith talked about how the bill that we passed last year out of the Judiciary Committee was a bipartisan bill. In fact, it was a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee. But what he failed to mention, and in the spirit of bipartisanship earlier I thought I wouldn't raise, was when that amendment that was attached in the Judiciary Committee got to the Rules Committee, the Rules Committee took it out. So the lobbying reform bill that the Republicans brought to the floor of the House stripped out the amendment that Mr. Smith, number one, claims bipartisanship on right now. Number two, the measure that we have brought before us today is, in fact, broader than the amendment that the Judiciary Committee voted on last year and, in fact, captures more bundling activity. It doesn't just capture very narrow bundling activities, it is broader, and, in fact, would capture a lot more of the bundling and disclose a lot more than the bill that Mr. Smith referred to. So, in fact, it is a very important step forward in terms of the public's right to know. Finally, the purpose of dealing with the registered lobbyists is registered lobbyists register for a reason. They are paid to try and influence legislation before Congress. They are paid to try and influence Members of Congress with respect to legislation. So the whole purpose of this is to go get at that nexus. Registered lobbyists don't register to go lobby a PAC. They don't go register to lobby the NRA PAC or to go lobby an environmental PAC or go lobby a right-to-life PAC. So this is drawn to get at the issue that we are trying to get out in this Congress, which is to change the way we do business here and to make sure that we address the nexus between registered lobbyists and the legislative process. That is the focus. This takes us out of that focus, so I urge that we oppose this particular motion to recommit.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member Mr. Smith, on all their work on this particular issue, and I want to thank them and the other members of the Judiciary Committee for reporting this bill out by unanimous vote, a unanimous bipartisan vote. And I also want to thank the other cosponsors of this legislation, including Mr. Meehan and others. Madam Speaker, in the last election I think the American people sent Congress a very strong and unambiguous message, that it's time to change the way Washington does business. They said loud and clear that the status quo on Capitol Hill is unacceptable. The American people want this Congress to hold the Bush administration accountable, and they want Congress to hold itself accountable. They grew weary of a Congress that used the power of the majority to benefit narrow special interests at the expense of the public interest, and that's why on the very opening day of this new Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we immediately enacted a series of important reforms, gift bans, travel limitation, and greater transparency of the earmark process. The lobbying reform bills that are before us today are the next important steps along the path to greater openness and transparency, and I think we would all agree that with greater openness to the public comes greater accountability for this institution. Let's be clear. Lobbyists come before this body to advocate issues on behalf of their clients, and they serve a valid and important service of providing information and expertise on complex issues that we face. However, we know a number of recent scandals have demonstrated that lobbyists, some of them like Jack Abramoff, have been able to exercise undue influence in shaping the legislative agenda and the policies that come out of the Congress. This bill, the Lobbying Transparency Act, deals with the role of lobbyists in the campaign fund-raising process. It requires registered lobbyists to disclose certain contributions that they bundle on behalf of candidates and political committees. This bill involves simply the disclosure of information that the public has a right to know, and a vote against this bill is a vote to deny that public important information that they can use to judge the legislative process. I think we all agree that Members of Congress are sent here to represent the public interest. We're not here to represent narrow special interests, and we should have a very simple test, a very simple standard in considering whether we're going to vote for or against legislation, and that test is, does that legislation advance the public interest. And the answer on this bill is unequivocally yes. Let's fulfill our promise to restore the public trust by serving the public interest. I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against the 2007 Supplemental War Funding Bill. I opposed the bill not for what it contained--but for what it lacked. The bill lacked strong accountability measures for the Iraqi government and omitted readiness standards to ensure that deployed troops are fully prepared and equipped for duty. While this bill represents an important step forward from where we were before the election, it does not go far enough. In the last election, the American public made clear that they wanted a change of direction in this war. This is not change enough. On May 1, 2003, the day the President declared an end of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 142,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Today there are 155,000. On that day there had been 138 American casualties and 542 wounded in Iraq. Today the number of casualties is 3,476 and the number of wounded is 25,225. The Iraqi people have also suffered. The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since May 2003 is between 53,000 and 63,000. The bill voted on today does little to reverse this course. The Congress sent the President a bill that would have begun the process of changing worsening conditions in this war by holding the Iraqis accountable for taking the steps necessary to achieve political reconciliation and greater stability. The bill also provided additional funding to go after Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and al Qaeda. By vetoing that bill, the President missed an opportunity to change direction in Iraq and complete the job in Afghanistan. By vetoing that bill, the President said ``no'' to ensuring that our troops had the training and equipment they need. By vetoing that bill he said ``no'' to ensuring that we hold the Iraqi Government accountable to the benchmarks which the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government have said are absolutely necessary to achieve political stability in Iraq. We voted to give our troops every penny the President asked for and more. We also insisted on accountability to protect our troops. The President wanted the money without adequate accountability. Our troops deserve better and so do the American people.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, in December 2006, while visiting her ailing 93-year-old mother in Iran, Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, a respected American scholar, and director of the Middle East Program at the Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, was imprisoned by the Government of Iran. Dr. Esfandiari is a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen who has lived in the United States for more than 25 years. She taught Persian language and literature for many years at Princeton University where she inspired untold numbers of students to study the rich Persian language and culture. While preparing to board her flight back to the United States, Dr. Esfandiari was stopped by Iranian officials, and forced at knife point to turn over her passport. Afterwards, she was repeatedly interrogated by Iranian intelligence officials and, though the Ministry of Intelligence has yet to produce any evidence of wrong-doing, she has been held in Iran's notorious Evin Prison since May 7, 2007. Iran's imprisonment of Haleh Esfandiari shows a gross disregard for the rule of law and belies statements by Iranian government officials that Iran would like to improve relations with the United States. I ask my congressional colleagues to join me in passing this resolution to demand that the government of Iran immediately release Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and to encourage the U.S. Government to employ all appropriate means to expedite the process.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1427, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and the table of contents, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, yesterday, as part of the Defense Authorization bill, we voted on an amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon that would, with limited exceptions, require the President to obtain congressional authorization before taking military action against Iran. I want to make something crystal clear: I fully support the intent of the amendment. However, I opposed the DeFazio Amendment for three reasons. First by singling out Iran, the amendment created a troubling implication that the President could take military action against other countries without congressional authorization. For example, there have been reports that the Bush Administration has considered military action against Syria. The DeFazio Amendment did not mention Syria. Does the omission of Syria, or any other country, give the President a green light to attack other nations without congressional authorization? Essentially, the DeFazio Amendment re-stated what I believe to be the powers of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. The Executive Branch must respect those powers. It establishes a bad precedent for the Congress to pass a DeFazio type amendment every time it is concerned the Executive Branch might take military action against a particular country in violation of the Constitution and statutory law. That would send the wrong message that Congress doesn't care whether the Executive abides by the Constitution unless the Congress passes a similar amendment in every instance. Second, it is difficult to predict every possible contingency when formulating legislation regarding the use of military force. If, for example, the DeFazio Amendment became the law of the land, and American civilians were taken hostage in Iran, the President would be prohibited from ordering a military rescue operation unless the Congress first passed a resolution. Certainly, that was not the intent of Mr. DeFazio's amendment, but that is its effect. Finally, the DeFazio Amendment does not address the problem that led to the bad decision to go to war in Iraq. Afterall, President Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq. The problem was that Congress mistakenly passed a resolution giving the President that authority. In conclusion, while I support the spirit and intent of this amendment, I think it establishes an unwise precedent, fails to consider all the contingencies that might lead to the justifiable use of force, and fails to address the issue that led to the war in Iraq.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2237 with certain reservations. Very few bills that pass this House are written exactly as each of us would like. My own plan for the redeployment of U.S. forces would not take this exact form. However, the general thrust of this plan is in the right direction. It establishes a timetable to extricate U.S. forces from a bloody, sectarian civil war while providing the flexibility to carry out other missions both inside and outside Iraq for the purpose of going after al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach. It also provides for U.S. forces to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, and to protect the U.S. Embassy and diplomatic missions. Mr. Speaker, I preferred the approach taken by the House in the Supplemental Appropriations bill we recently passed. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that measure. He wants the funds without any accountability. We cannot give the President a blank check. While I do not agree with every provision in this bill, it sends the right message--it is time to end the President's failed policies in Iraq and change direction.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the point you are raising. As it says, such sums as may be necessary to address this issue. I wouldn't expect it to be a very large sum. TSA is telling us they have addressed this issue. I am not sure we are totally convinced. If we could get this amendment passed, obviously as we go through the process, if there is some claim that this is going to cost billions of dollars, I wouldn't expect it would, but I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, let me start by commending Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King and the Homeland Security Committee on a bipartisan basis for their good work on this piece of legislation. I have an amendment that I hope will be agreeable to all sides. In January of this year, the TSA launched a Web site. Some of you may have seen it. It was called the Traveler Verification Identification Program, and it was designed to allow those passengers who were wrongfully identified on the no-fly lists or the selectee lists the opportunity to start the process of getting their names removed from that list. The way you did that was you go and you log on to the TSA Web site and submit sensitive security information and personal information, like your Social Security number, the place and date of birth, your drivers license number and other personal identification numbers in order to demonstrate and prove to TSA that you were not a ``person of concern'' on their list. That was an important step forward, a positive list. I think we have all heard the stories about individuals who were wrongfully placed on that list or whose identifications were mistaken for somebody else. So that was a good way to start to get people off the list. But right after the launch of that program, they had to shut it down. The TSA had to shut down the site because, as was reported in The Washington Post and the high-tech magazine Wired, it was determined that the information that individuals were entering onto the TSA Web site was not secure, very personal types of information. Security experts found that the site lacked many of the basic measures necessary to protect personal information, no encryption devices, no other safeguards, and that the data being transferred to TSA was essentially vulnerable to being taken and used for identity theft and other purposes. After these concerns were brought to the attention of TSA, they had to bring down the Web site. They put up another Web site and program in February called the Travelers Redress Inquiry Program. Now, the TSA has said that it has made the necessary adjustments to protect this very personal and confidential information from exposure and theft, but it is not clear that they have taken all the measures that are necessary, especially in light of the fact that only last week we found out that a hard drive containing the personal data of almost 100,000 TSA employees disappeared. Data security does not seem to have been taken seriously enough by the TSA. This amendment is designed to focus greater attention on that issue. This amendment is very simple. It requires TSA to take the necessary steps required to protect the personal information submitted online by passengers, by our constituents, when they are seeking to remove their names from the no-fly list, the selectee list or other related lists. It is designed to get at a very specific problem that has arisen in recent months, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in a time when most students graduate with at least $20,000 in debt, it is more important than ever that students can find loans with low interest rates that are easy to pay back. In the best case, students can get federal financial aid. However, more and more students have maxed out that aid and are turning to the private market. Many schools recommend lenders to help students and their families find loans. Now, most schools do work in the best interest of their students, and choose preferred lenders based on the benefits they can give students. But, as we have seen, some unscrupulous lenders have schemed with certain unscrupulous staff of college loan offices to serve their own special interests rather than the interests of students and their families. What is worse, the Department of Education knew about these cozy relationships between student loan officials and lenders and did nothing about it. This is indicative of the lack of oversight that has persisted at the Department of Education for the last six years. Some of us in Congress, a few years ago, worked to close a loophole in the federal student loan program that was costing taxpayers millions of dollars. We had to pass a law to force the Department of Education to act--they had refused to issue emergency regulations to stop the subsidy and save money for taxpayers and students. And now, again, the Department of Education, when faced with a clear conflict of interest between lenders and schools, has failed to respond adequately. Congress must step in to make the rules clear. This bill does just that. It clarifies appropriate conduct for schools. It encourages private loans to be competitive with federal loans. It makes students more aware of their options by making the student loan market less confusing and more transparent. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will restore trust between students and their colleges. Students need to be able to trust that their school officials are giving them the best advice in the confusing world of student loans. The provisions of this bill, by requiring schools to disclose exactly how their preferred lenders are chosen, will reassure students and parents that schools are looking out for their best interests. This bill will help students and parents get the best deal for their money. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and put in place a system that looks after students' interests, and is not plagued by special interests.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize recent achievements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC recently captured the top ranking among large Federal agencies in the ``2007 Best Places To Work in the Federal Government'' rankings announced Thursday, April 19, 2007 by the Partnership for Public Service and the American University Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation. This recognition is a great honor for all of the men and women at the NRC. Agency employees are clearly committed to the mission of licensing and regulating the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security, and protecting the environment. As evidenced by this award, the NRC staff has the dedication and commitment that make the NRC a great place to work. The NRC was also recently recognized as a ``Best Diversity Company'' by the readers of Diversity/Careers in Engineering and Information Technology. Reader survey results highlighted the NRC for the agency's strong support of women and minorities, attention to work/life balance, and commitment to supplier diversity. These two awards highlight what we in the National Capital Region have known for a long time--the NRC is a top-notch employer. With its headquarters offices located in my district in Rockville, Maryland, I commend the NRC for its recent achievements and I applaud the agency's dedication to its employees while enabling the Nation to safely use radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes and ensuring that people and the environment are protected.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Improving Head Start Act, a bill that will strengthen our nation's premiere early childhood education program and expand its services to thousands more children across the country. Head Start has been improving lives and increasing opportunities for children and families for more than 40 years. With this important program, we teach our children that they can succeed, regardless of background or family income. We open doors to millions and prepare them for future success in school and careers. This bill provides much-needed amendments to Head Start that will improve workforce quality by increasing funding for staff salaries and professional development, and enhance coordination between early education and primary schools. It also strengthens standards and accountability to ensure that our children are getting the best quality care and education. I am also pleased that this House defeated a divisive and misguided motion that would, for the first time, legitimize publicly funded religious discrimination in the Head Start program. It would have given taxpayer money to Head Start centers and allow those centers to exclude taxpayers from jobs solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. It would be a green light for religious bigotry. Its passage would have been bad for education and bad for religion and I joined the National Head Start Association, the Interfaith Alliance, and countless other secular and religious advocates of the Head Start Program in opposing it. I am glad that we have a clean bill to pass today. I also urge my colleagues to not only vote for this bill, but to continue to advocate for Head Start by supporting full funding for the program. It is not enough to pass the legislation--we need to give our communities the resources they need to carry out our mandates. I thank Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee and the Committee on Education and Labor for their work on this important legislation, and urge its final passage today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today marks the 4th anniversary of the speech President Bush gave on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in which he told the American people that hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan were over. Standing under a broad ``Mission Accomplished'' banner, the President congratulated Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for a job well done and declared Iraq free and the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan destroyed. Like many Americans, the image of the President under that banner 4 years ago still stands out because each passing year is a reminder that the mission has not been accomplished, Iraq is not a safer place, and neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda have been destroyed. The President and his advisors try to distract the public with evocative images and declarations about success in Iraq and Afghanistan. But no amount of spin can disguise the harsh reality of the desperate situation on the ground. On that day 4 years ago, when the President declared an end of hostilities, there were 142,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Today there are 155,000. On May 1st, 2003, there had been 138 American casualties and 542 wounded in Iraq. Today the number of casualties is 3,351 and the number of wounded is 25,090. The Iraqi people have also paid a dear price during this war. Though exact numbers are difficult to find, the estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since May 2003 is between 53,000 and 63,000. One controversial study in 2004 estimated that as many as 655,000 have been killed. Today the President had an opportunity to change direction in Iraq and begin to bring the war to an end. He squandered that opportunity. The Congress sent the President a bill that would hold Iraqis accountable for taking the steps necessary to achieve political reconciliation and greater stability. The bill also provided additional funding to go after Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. By vetoing the bill, the President missed an opportunity to change direction in Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan remains grim. On this day 4 years ago, the President told the American people, ``In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed Al Qaeda and the Taliban.'' In speech after speech, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials claimed that Al Qaeda had been routed. But the reality is that 4 years after the U.S. invasion, the Taliban have regrouped and remains a serious threat. In fact, a new Jihadist sanctuary appears to be emerging on the Afghan-Pakistan border. By almost any metric, whether it is the number of Iraqi schools being built or the number of Afghan roads secured, it is clear that the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is far from accomplished. But it is also clear that Americans no longer have the patience for impressive photo ops and overblown pronouncements about completed missions. The American public wants achievable goals and quantifiable results--not slogans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the President says send him the money. Let's be clear. This bill provides every penny the President asked for to fund the troops in Iraq. It also provides for something the President did not ask for: funds to help improve the treatment of our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and other places around this country. It also provides something that the American people have now insisted on but the White House doesn't ask for, and that is accountability with respect to the war in Iraq. That is why the President doesn't like the bill before us. We know the White House has become an accountability- free zone. The White House got used to a Congress, the old Republican Congress, that gave the President a blank check, money without accountability. And this provides funding with accountability. That is why they don't like it. Let us be very clear. If the President vetoes this bill, he will be saying ``no'' to ensuring that our troops have the training and equipment that they need. If he vetoes this bill, he will saying ``no'' to ensuring that we hold the Iraqi Government accountable to the benchmarks which the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government have said are absolutely necessary to achieve political stability in Iraq. If he vetoes this bill, he will be saying ``no'' to those additional funds for our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and for our veterans health care system. He will also be saying ``no'' to the additional funds that we put in this bill to the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Here we are so many years after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda remains a vibrant organization and Osama bin Laden remains at large; we provide funds to go after Osama bin Laden, additional funds; the President will be saying ``no'' to that. And the President, if he vetoes this bill, will be saying ``no'' to the overwhelming sentiment of the American people who understand the failed policy and say we need to change direction. Let's change direction. Let's say ``yes'' to this conference committee report.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the anniversary of the first genocide of the 20th century. More than 90 years ago, the Ottoman Empire organized a campaign to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians. The world watched as this horror unfolded before them, and did nothing. As the first genocide of the 21st century--this time in Darfur--began to take shape, the world again hesitated, this time to debate for months the definition of genocide, as thousands died and thousands more were displaced. Today, 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur and 2.5 million driven from their homes. And so, I rise Mr. Speaker not only to acknowledge and remember the horrific events that befell the Armenian people at the dawn of the last century, but also to highlight the horrific events occurring one hundred years later in Darfur at the dawn of this century. For the past few years, as the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide approached, I hoped that year would be the year a solution to the crisis would come. But, this year, instead of speaking of how the lessons of the Armenian Genocide helped unite the world around a solution for Darfur, I can only report of ongoing suffering and continued killings. As the world pauses today to remember those who suffered and died during the Armenian Genocide, we need to ask ourselves if we have really absorbed the lessons of that tragedy--and, if we are really doing all that can be done to bring this century's genocide to an end.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support these important bills--the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act and the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act--and to keep our Nation competitive in an era of global economic and scientific competition. Now, more than ever, we must ensure that America remains at the forefront of discovery and innovation. To do that, we must engage our young people and encourage more of them to pursue careers in science, math, and engineering. These two bills accomplish that by fostering student potential in K-12 classrooms and by investing in long-term scientific research to keep more young scientists in our Nation's laboratories. The 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science Math Scholarship Act would increase the number of scholarships for students majoring in the field of science, technology, engineering, and math who want to teach and would strengthen the skills of current STEM teachers by expanding professional development. These teachers would be better equipped to excite and engage students in math and science. The Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act would increase our investment in long-term scientific research and provide grants to young researchers. It would encourage our brightest young minds to think innovatively and push the boundaries of current research. Also, it will encourage young scientists to continue their study in U.S. institutions. Mr. Chairman, these bills will help stimulate exciting research and increase the number of students entering the fields of math and science. They are an essential part of our competitiveness agenda, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for them today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important bill--the DC Voting Rights Act. It is long past time to pass this legislation. It is not a question of politics or political advantage, it is a question of civil rights-- it is a question of whether we believe that those people who live in the city that houses our Democratic institutions, who often work in the Federal government, deserve equal representation in our legislative body. There is simply no excuse to deny the hundreds of thousands of residents of our Capital City the right to equal representation in the United States Congress. They are citizens in every way. They pay the same federal taxes as anyone else, can serve in the armed forces, and are subject to the same laws of the land. What a terrible message we send when the people in the capital of the world's greatest democracy do not have a vote in the people's House. I have the privilege or representing the district right next to Washington, DC, and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border from my district into Washington, DC, you go from a district where you have voting representation to one where you do not. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bipartisan compromise that extends full voting rights to our neighbors here in the District. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally end taxation without representation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Teach for America Act and to ensure that this important program gets the Federal support it needs to expand and put more outstanding recent college graduates in our Nation's underserved schools. I thank my bipartisan cosponsors, Congressman Castle, Congresswoman DeLauro, Congressman Regula, and Congressman Sarbanes, for their work on this issue. Teach for America is a national corps of college graduates of all academic majors who commit two years to teach in public schools. Since its creation in 1990, more than 12,000 exceptional individuals have joined Teach for America and directly impacted the lives of over 2 million students in under-resourced schools across the country. What's more, when these teachers leave the program, they often continue to work in education and public service. Sixty-three percent of Teach for America alumni remain in education as teachers, principals, school founders, and policy advisors. Others pursue work in fields such as law, medicine, and social work where they continue to increase opportunities for children living in low-income communities. Madam Speaker, 17 years of experience have proven that Teach for America is a program that works. We in Congress have supported this program in the past. Our bill would cement our partnership with this important initiative by making Teach for America a federally-authorized program. It would help Teach for American expand its recruitment, selection, training, and support of new teachers. It would put more enthusiastic, outstanding teachers in high-need schools. And it would help the program build new leaders in education and public service. I urge my colleagues to join me to pass the Teach for America Act. Let's help this exceptional and proven program expand its reach and reduce teacher shortages in the areas where their services are so desperately needed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mark D. Lerner, Vice President of The Annette M. and Theodore N. Lerner Family Foundation, who will receive the ``Chadesh Yameinu'' (which means `renewing our days' in Hebrew) Award from the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School of Rockville, Maryland, where Mr. Lerner has served as a board member and is a proud alumni parent. Mr. Lerner's vision of community service and his unswerving dedication to seeding tomorrow's leaders by supporting their education today made him an ideal recipient for this prestigious award. Mark D. Lerner is a principal of Lerner Enterprises, the estate development, management, and investment company founded by his father, Theodore N. Lerner, more than 50 years ago. In 2006, along with his father and brothers-in-law, Mark became a principal owner of Major League Baseball's Washington Nationals, in large part because of a ``family model'' of ownership lauded by Major League Baseball as the ideal way to ensure continuity and growth, both for the team and for the greater Washington community. Mark believes in a vision of athletics as a catalyst for civic renewal and that vision extends to his many other professional business interests. Mark's dedication to community service is illustrated by his impressive record of volunteerism and philanthropy, whether serving as a valued board member or participating in the daily life of institutions fighting for the causes he champions. As Vice President of The Annette M. and Theodore N. Lerner Family Foundation, he provides generous support to Jewish organizations in the fields of higher education, community-building, religious life, and tolerance. Pairing his investment in strengthening Jewish communal life with his passion for athletics, he has co-chaired the JCC Maccabi Games of Greater Washington and continues to seek out opportunities to foster community through sport. Mark Lerner has displayed an unwavering commitment to the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School throughout his years of involvement as a parent, alumni parent, and steadfast supporter. He chaired the Building Committee of Operation Excellence, the CESJDS campaign for the construction of the state-of-the-art Lower and Upper School campuses. Until recently, he also was a member of the Board of Directors and chaired the Building and Grounds Committee. His expertise in the area of real estate management has guided the school's expansion and ensured that its students are equipped to thrive in a space that nourishes their love of learning. CESJDS honors a distinguished member of our community every year with the ``Chadesh Yameinu'' Award. With a name drawn from a Hebrew prayer that refers to ``renewing our days,'' the Chadesh Yameinu Award expresses the school's appreciation for the recipient's contribution to the institution's continued vitality and, by extension, to the promise of a bright Jewish tomorrow. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mark D. Lerner, whose commitment to Jewish education and his leadership in community service and philanthropy serve as a shining example to future generations.