Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Chesapeake's Healthy and Environmentally Sound Stewardship of Energy and Agriculture Act of 2007''--CHESSEA. This bill will have a major beneficial impact on the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and many of its 150 tributary streams and rivers. We invite and encourage you to join us as original cosponsors. Like many of America's natural resources, the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers continue to be plagued by pollution. Unfortunately, agriculture accounts for a significant part of the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment running to the Bay. The House will soon take up the 2007 farm bill which will provide billions of dollars a year for farm conservation programs and therefore, provides an unparalleled opportunity for our region to address its critical conservation needs CHESSEA would bring significant new federal technical and financial assistance to farmers and landowners in the Bay watershed states to help them in their efforts to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment runoff into the streams and rivers that run to the Chesapeake Bay. It would also provide additional incentives for the region's farmers to produce new sources of renewable energy that will simultaneously improve water quality and reduce the impact of fossil fuel consumption on the atmosphere. Over the past five years, several Chesapeake Bay states have committed significant new funding to try to reach the goals of the federal-state Chesapeake 2000 agreement, which set specific pollution reduction goals for 2010. In spite of those commitments, we are far from meeting the 2010 goals. The experts have estimated that in order to meet our clean up pledge, the federal Government will have to provide $200 million a year. This legislation would help to fulfill the federal government's Chesapeake 2000 commitment to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution to the Bay while at the same time helping the region's agriculture and rural areas. The Chesapeake Bay and several of the major rivers that feed it, including the Susquehanna, the Potomac, and the James, are among America's most stunning natural features. Approximately 400 years ago, Captain John Smith and the Jamestown settlers sailed into a Chesapeake Bay that was healthy, balanced, and among the world's most biologically productive places. Today, the Bay and its rivers are sadly diminished. The CHESSEA Act of 2007 would make significant progress toward restoring the Bay's balance and biological productivity to support generations to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the CSRS Retirement Repayment Technical Correction Act of 2007. This bill would correct an unintended consequence that followed the enactment of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) on November 5, 1990, and provide relief for Federal employees who were adversely affected by that enactment. The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 made retroactive changes to the rules related to separating Federal employees. While the rules were made retroactive to October 1, 1990, the implementing regulations were not promulgated until February 1991. This four month period between the enactment of the law and the promulgation of the implementing regulations has adversely affected any Federal employee who withdrew their retirement contributions during this period. This matter was brought to my attention by Sandra Schatz Landis, my constituent who was on maternity leave from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), a former bureau of the Department of Justice at the time in question. On November 5, 1990, Ms. Landis withdrew $24,439.00 in retirement contributions and was advised that if she later re-entered federal service, she could re-deposit the withdrawal without paying interest and not suffer any adverse consequences. Unbeknownst to Ms. Landis and the personnel specialists at INS who were advising her, because of the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that occurred on that very same day, November 5, 1990, employees who withdrew their retirement contributions as far back as October 1, 1990 were suddenly required to repay their withdrawn contributions with interest in order to have the prior service included in their annuity calculation. What is unfair about this is that employees had no warning that the rules under which they were making major financial decisions were changing. If Ms. Landis were to make this repayment today, she would have to refund over $58,000 of which $34,000 is interest. This is just one example of an unintended injustice that must be corrected. The CSRS Retirement Repayment Technical Correction Act of 2007 will provide relief to those who withdrew their retirement contributions between Oct 1, 1990, when the Omnibus Reconciliation Act was enacted, and February 1991, when implementing regulations were promulgated. It is fair and reasonable legislation that needs to be enacted into law.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor one of my constituents, Robert P. Lynch, for his 65 years of service and commitment to the Kensington Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Lynch joined the Kensington Volunteer Fire Department in May 1942. Since then, he has served in every appointed and elected position in the fire department, including President, member of the Board of Directors, and Fire Chief, with over 15 years as Assistant Chief for Rescue. He has served as a Delegate or Alternate to the Maryland State Fireman's Association for an astonishing 52 years. Mr. Lynch has served his community at the county, state and national levels for scores of years and served as a Delegate to the Montgomery County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association. He taught emergency care for nearly 20 years and continues to serve on committees and workgroups, playing an active role, attending nearly every function, and participating in every company meeting. Mr. Lynch retired from the United States Justice Department, where he served since 1941. He earned the American Legion's Citation for Meritorious Service. He was a devoted husband to Margaret, who was also active in the Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, until her recent death. Thanks to the tireless and dedicated efforts of Robert P. Lynch, our community is a safer place to live and work. Mr. Lynch is an extraordinary and unselfish American and an inspiration to us all. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Lynch for his outstanding contributions to the people of the State of Maryland.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Emerson be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 695 and added as a cosponsor of H.R. 1222. I regret the error.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my constituents, Minnie Belle McIntosh, who celebrates her 100th birthday on March 30, 2007. Minnie Belle McIntosh has led an extraordinary life. When she was only 4 years old, her mother died of tuberculosis, leaving her and her sister Anne as orphans to be shuttled between relatives in Mississippi and Texas. Despite this early hardship, the bright and lively Minnie Belle graduated from the Blue Mountain College boarding school and attended college at the Mississippi State College for Women, where she majored in math and physics. Her senior thesis on ``The Talking Machines'' included correspondence with Thomas Edison. After college, Minnie Belle took up the only occupation available to an educated woman in that region and became a schoolteacher. The drop in crop prices following World War I hit Mississippi particularly hard, but Roosevelt's New Deal legislation opened up new opportunities for its residents. Minnie Belle became an extension officer; her job was to inform rural families of the best ways to provide their children with good nutrition. Because of her gender, her employment was never stable, and she traveled from Minneapolis to California to Texas to Mississippi to perform her job, but her ``people skills'' made her an excellent social worker. During World War II Minnie Belle, like many other women, went to work in Washington, DC. She was employed by the Department of Agriculture, from which she retired in 1972. Her volunteer work in Maryland in recent years has been exemplary. The Shepherd's Table and The Clothes Closet were founded to feed and clothe the homeless, and Minnie Belle marshaled the efforts of some 50 volunteers. Confronted with a mountain of donated clothes, she used the size measurements from a Sears catalogue to mark trousers and dresses, and she guided the clients with good humor and common sense. The success of The Shepherd's Table in Maryland and Montgomery County owes much to Minnie Belle McIntosh's involvement. At 85, Minnie Belle moved into a retirement community, Bedford Court in Silver Spring, Maryland, where she turned her attention to recycling. She quickly whipped the residents into shape, creating an army of recyclers, who dutifully washed out bottles and cans, separated paper trash from garbage, and happily signed up to be floor recycling monitors. She and Bedford Court are recipients of more than a half dozen awards recognizing their efforts. Her greatest asset, however, besides her persistence, is her interest in people and kindness to all. Even now, as she reaches 100 years, she knows everyone's name and story. On this special occasion, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Minnie Belle McIntosh on her 100th birthday and in recognizing her as a woman of great perseverance, kindness, and accomplishment. I am delighted to wish her a year of good health and happiness and to thank her for her wonderful contributions to our community.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, along with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts, I am proud to I introduce the Federal Law Enforcement Pension Adjustment Equity Act of 2007. I am also very pleased to have other distinguished members of this body as original cosponsors of this important bipartisan legislation, including Mr. Stupak of Michigan and Ms. Jo Ann Davis, Mr. Moran and Ms. Drake of Virginia. Retirees of the United States Park Police and the Secret Service Uniformed Division who began their careers before January 1, 1984, were promised that, upon retirement, the would receive increases in their annuities proportional to pay increases for active duty servicfmen and women. However, language included into the 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act specifically denied this promise to this group of retirees as a cost-saving measure. As a consequence, these retirees have been denied an annuity increase at great personal financial cost, even though they entered federal uniformed service with the promise that these annuities would be there for them upon retirement. This is a gross injustice to those who put their lives on the line every day in service to their country. That is why we are introducing the Federal Law Enforcement Pension Adjustment Equity Act of 2007, to ensure that Congress does what is right, what is just and what is fair. This legislation is bipartisan and should not be controversial. It is my hope that this body can move this bill expeditiously through the legislative process and correct an injustice against uniformed federal personnel who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to serve our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago President Bush sent our troops to war without a plan for success in Iraq, and without a plan to care for our wounded soldiers returning home. During those 4 years, the old Congress rubber-stamped the failed policies of the Bush administration. The American people know well that when you ignore failure and bad decisions, you simply get more of them. Today, we are demanding accountability for a change, accountability to ensure that our troops get the training and equipment they need, accountability to ensure that our wounded soldiers returning home are treated with a dignity that they deserve. We hold the Iraqi government accountable for taking the steps toward political reconciliation which they, themselves, have said are necessary to achieve stability. The accountability measures in this bill track the recommendations made by the independent bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission. The President chose to reject those recommendations and, instead, to escalate the war in Iraq. At the same time, the President has not paid adequate attention to those who were responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan. This bill provides additional resources for completing that mission and for holding those responsible who did attack us on September 11. Al Qaeda is still plotting against us. It demands accountability, it supports our troops, and it strengthens our national security. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a change and direction in Iraq. It is time to bring some accountability to the history of failed decisions we have made so we don't continue to make the same bad decisions going forward. The American people asked for and deserve a change in direction. That is what this bill does.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I am placing in the Congressional Record this op-ed by my constituent Leonard Weiss. Mr. Weiss is a senior science fellow at the Center for International and Security Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University and a consultant to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. His research at CISAC includes an assessment of the impact on the non-proliferation regime of nuclear trade with non-signers of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This piece, written with his colleague Larry Diamond of Stanford's Hoover Institution, recommends that Congress hold hearings to examine U.S. policies regarding Iran and suggests a number of options available to Congress to address the troubling issue of Iran's nuclear activities. We must conduct a healthy debate of all the options at our disposal. This article contributes to that important discussion. [From Los Angeles Times.Com, Feb. 5, 2007] Congress Must Stop an Attack on Iran (By Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond) Despite anguish and anger over the Bush administration's decision to escalate its failing war in Iraq, Congress is unlikely to cut off funding. Even most opponents of the war fear that they could be blamed for not supporting the troops in the field and for a possible descent into even greater catastrophe in the face of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But nothing prevents Congress from using its power of the purse to prevent an American attack on Iran. President Bush's neoconservative advisors and pundit supporters have been beating the drums of war with Iran since 2003, when the president declared Iran to be part of an ``axis of evil.'' Recall that a senior administration official told The Times that Iran should ``take a number'' in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. In his recent address to the nation on the troop surge in Iraq, Bush issued more threats to Iran. Now the president has named a Navy admiral to head the U.S. Central Command and dispatched a second aircraft carrier and minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, presumably to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz in the event of conflict. These developments and other administration moves could presage an air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran is not innocent of dangerous and provocative behavior. Tehran has supported insurgent groups in Iraq, including helping to provide sophisticated explosives that have killed U.S. soldiers. And Iran's continued development of a nuclear enrichment facility is in defiance of the international community's demand to halt those actions. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repulsive statements about the Holocaust and Israel add to the nervousness about Iran's future actions. But war is not yet justified, except in the minds of those who have been lobbying for it for years. Iran is still years away from being a nuclear threat, and our experience with ``preventive war'' in Iraq should teach us a thing or two. Launching another such war without international approval would leave us even more politically isolated and militarily overstretched. Attacking a Middle Eastern country--one much stronger than Iraq and with the ability to cut off oil supplies from the Strait of Hormuz--could inflame the region, intensify Shiite militia attacks on our soldiers in Iraq and stimulate terrorist attacks on Americans and U.S. interests worldwide. But recklessness, not prudence, has been the hallmark of this administration's foreign policy. Beyond this, the president and vice president subscribe to what some call the ``unitary executive,'' which is a fancy way of saying they believe that Congress cannot prevent the president from doing almost anything he wants. The 1973 War Powers Act, passed in the wake of our disastrous war in Vietnam, allows the president to put U.S. troops in a combat situation under certain conditions before obtaining any congressional authorization to do so. When Bush signed the Iraq war resolution, he issued a statement challenging the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, indicating that he could take the nation to war without obeying its restrictions. Unfortunately, even if the president were to agree to the act's restrictions, he could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack. What to do? Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned the administration that it had better seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. But we need Senate and House hearings now to put the Bush administration on notice that, in the absence of an imminent military attack or a verified terrorist attack on the United States by Iran, Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country. Those hearings should aim toward passage of a law preventing the expenditure of any funds for a military attack on Iran unless Congress has either declared war with that country or has otherwise authorized military action under the War Powers Act. The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings. It is, of course, possible that the president's truculent language and actions toward Iran are a bluff, an attempt to rein in its irresponsible behavior. But the administration's mendacious and incompetent course of action in taking the nation to war with Iraq gives us no reason to provide the president with the benefit of any doubt. And stiffening economic sanctions--at a time when Iran's economy is ailing and the regime is losing popular support--offers a better and safer prospect of exerting leverage. Another war of choice would only pour fuel on the fires of the Middle East. And the history of this administration shows that if Congress does not constrain this president, he could well act recklessly again, in ways that would profoundly damage our national interest.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to rise today and join the millions of my fellow Americans in commemorating Greek Independence Day which, on March 25th celebrates the 186th anniversary of the rebellion and the struggle of the Greek people against the Ottoman Empire. Thomas Jefferson referred to ancient Greece as the ``light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' What makes Greek Independence Day so special here in America is that it reminds us of the strong principles and bonds that the U.S. and Greece share. In looking into the struggles of our two nations, we realize how much our struggles have in common, and how much each country has been influenced by the other. Greece and the United States are bound by an absolute commitment to the democratic ideals of justice and freedom and continue to be strong allies. By commemorating Greek Independence Day, we also celebrate the strength and the resolve of the human spirit that has been the inspiration of us all. On the occasion of the anniversary of Greek independence, I join all Americans in wishing the people of Greece congratulations and best wishes. We will remain eternally grateful to the Greek people and the legacy of ancient Greece for the shining example it set for democracies the world over.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman. Madam Speaker, this bill is about justice, it is about fairness and about democracy. 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 of representing the district right next to Washington, D.C., and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border from Washington, D.C., into my district, you go from a district where you have no voting representation in Congress to one where you do. We need to make sure that all the people in this country share the right to a vote in the people's House. I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of House Resolution 89, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a day should be established as Dutch-American Friendship Day. The Dutch/American relationship is the longest unbroken diplomatic relationship in the history of the United States of America. The relationship actually began years before the Pilgrims landed in America as they first resided for almost 11 years in the Netherlands before sailing for the New World. On November 16, 1776, only 4 months after declaring our independence from Great Britain, an American ship sailed into the West Indies Dutch harbor of St. Eustatius and was greeted by a cannon salute in recognition of the American flag. It was the first official recognition by any sovereign nation of the United States. On April 19, 1789, Ambassador John Adams officially presented his credentials to Prince William of Orange, thus establishing the diplomatic ties between the United States and the Republic of the Netherlands that we enjoy today. The U.S./Dutch relationship has stood the test of time and has strengthened in the crucible of conflict as the Dutch have stood beside us in times of peace and war. The Dutch supported us in our war for independence. Sixty years ago Dutch and American servicemen stood side by side during World War II and today the Dutch stand by us still in the Global War on Terror. The debt we owe to our Dutch friends is seen not only in our people, and in the persons of such famous Dutch Americans as Presidents Martin VanBuren, and Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, but also in our experience as a Nation. Our traditions of religious freedom and tolerance as well as our system of government, all have spiritual and legal roots in our relationship with the Dutch Republic. That is why I stand today to thank the Dutch people for their support over these centuries and to encourage the founding of a Dutch-American Friendship Day.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act, a bill to help ensure that all young people acquire the vital global knowledge they need to compete in today's increasingly-connected world. I thank my colleague, Roger Wicker, for his leadership and hard work on this issue. Madam Speaker, our nation is facing a crisis in geographic knowledge. Sixty-three percent of young adults cannot locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East. Seventy-five percent cannot find Iran. Half cannot locate New York on a map of the United States. These statistics are emblematic of a general lack of knowledge about the world that is troubling in a time when the United States must compete in a global marketplace. We need Americans to know and understand the countries and cultures that are or could become our political and economic partners. It is unacceptable that seventy-one percent of young Americans do not know that the United States is the world's largest exporter of goods. It is unacceptable that, despite the fact that it is the world's largest democracy, nearly half of young adults do not know where India is located. We need to improve our children's understanding of their world both within and beyond our country's borders. The Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act will do just that. It would authorize federal funding to improve student achievement, increase teacher training, encourage education research, and develop effective instructional materials and strategies for geography education. It will leverage and expand support for geography education partnerships. And it will prepare America's students to move forward and succeed in a rapidly-changing, competitive, global economy. It is time to be sure that American citizens are informed citizens of the world. I ask my colleagues to join Congressman Wicker and me and support the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today, with my colleagues Chet Edwards, Jeff Miller and Walter Jones, I am re-introducing the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, a bill to fulfill promises made to young men and women when they entered the service that quality health care would be available to them when they retired after a career in uniformed service to their country. In addition, we are introducing a new bill, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act, legislation addressing a specific obligation Congress has to military retirees who entered the uniformed services prior to 1956 under one set of rules but retired under a different set of rules that stripped them of health care that had been provided routinely to them. It was this class of military retirees for whom a Federal Appeals Court cited the moral obligation of Congress to address a remedy. America's military retirees and their families have sacrificed much for their nation. The last thing they need is to contend with the government's failure to deliver health care that was promised and earned. For generations, military recruits were told they would receive health care at military facilities when they retired, and for generations this was routinely the case. However, beginning in 1956 laws and administrative policies gradually made this care less available, so that ultimately many military retirees had no access to health care under the military system. Military downsizing made access to military bases more difficult for retirees, military treatment facilities were no longer required to provide--and in some cases stopped providing--retiree health care, and many retirees who could not get care at military bases could not find private doctors willing to participate in the off-base plan known as Tricare Standard. The original version of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act was introduced in 1999, with two legislative goals: To ensure that military retirees under age 65 who were ill-served by the Tricare military health care system could have the option to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plan; and To ensure that military retirees who qualify for Medicare (generally those over age 65) would retain coverage under the military system, just as federal civilian retirees could retain FEHB coverage as a second payer. One year later Congress authorized the program known today as Tricare for Life (TFL) in the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act. TFL was a major victory for Medicare-eligible military retirees, offering Defense Department coverage as a second payer to Medicare. Unfortunately, Congress did not address the needs of other groups of military retirees for whom the military health care system continues to be broken. While the Tricare system works well for many military retirees, some younger retirees, especially those under age 65 who do not yet qualify for TFL, still do not have access to promised--and earned--health care. Many military facilities will not treat military retirees on a timely basis, if at all, and many continue to have difficulty finding private doctors who participate in Tricare Standard. And even though TFL addressed the health care needs of Medicare- eligible retirees over age 65, there remained an outstanding broken promise to a class of the most elderly retirees from the World War II and Korean War eras. These military retirees joined the service under one set of rules with a promise and expectation that fully paid health care would be theirs upon retirement, but when they retired they discovered that intervening laws forced them to operate under a different set of rules that took away that promised care. Many of them were forced to expend significant life savings on health care and they believe that the government literally owes them. A breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by some of these pre-1956 retirees went all the way to a Federal Appeals court, which ruled in 2003 against the plaintiffs on a technicality but made it clear that the plaintiffs had a legitimate moral claim: Accordingly, we must affirm the district court's judgment and can do no more than hope Congress will make good on the promises recruiters made in good faith to plaintiffs and others of the World War II and Korean War era--from 1941 to 1956, when Congress enacted its first health care insurance act for military members, excluding older retirees. . . . We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of- contract claim. . . . Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by [the plaintiffs] on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees. Recent versions of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act have enjoyed strong support in Congress. Most recently it had 260 bipartisan cosponsors in the 109th Congress. The bill addressed the ongoing broken promises to military retirees with two main legislative provisions: As with the original version of the bill, the bill in the 109th Congress offered military retirees under age 65 who were ill-served by the Tricare military health care system the option to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB). The FEHB provision offered a proven and effective health care option that can take effect very quickly without creating a new bureaucracy; and Addressed Congress' moral obligation to make good on broken promises to the pre-1956 retirees, who were forced to spend significant sums for health care despite assurances when they joined the service that no- cost retirement health care would be provided, by exempting them from paying the Medicare Part B premiums required to enroll in Tricare for Life. The exemption from Part B premiums for the pre-1956 retirees was a fair and just matter of principle. But the high costs of that provision prevented the bill from moving forward. Many Members of Congress believed we had addressed the health care needs of elderly military retirees by enacting TFL in the FY2001 defense bill, and even if the Federal Court had rightfully noted that Congress needed to further address broken promises to the most elderly military retirees, the federal budget simply could not accommodate exempting one and one-half million military retirees, spouses and dependents from paying Medicare Part B premiums. In addition to the cost issue, there remained another significant legislative hurdle for the Keep Our Promise Act. Because of its impact on the delivery of health care generally and its direct impact on three different health care systems--Tricare, FEHB and Medicare--the bill was referred to four separate congressional committees, which makes consideration and passage of any legislation much more difficult. An old axiom says that ``politics is the art of the possible.'' We hope this year to prove that axiom right, by dividing the Keep Our Promise Act into two distinct pieces of legislation, to improve the chances that at least one of the bills' legislative provisions can soon become law. So today we are introducing a revised Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, which has the sole purpose of offering the FEHB options to military retirees so they have a way to get quality health care underwritten by the U.S. government if the military health care system doesn't work for them. This is a legislative remedy that keeps the government's promise that military retirees will have quality health care without creating a new bureaucracy. We are also introducing a new companion measure, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act, which fulfills the country's moral obligation to the most elderly military retirees for whom the rules were changed in the middle of the game and to whom we continue to owe back debts. While the financial cost of this bill is high, the moral costs of not enacting it are far higher. It is our hope that this bill will get the hearing it deserves and that Congress will acknowledge its moral obligation that was made so clear by the Federal Courts. Madam Speaker, today we set a course that we believe is politically viable--the art of the possible. Our new legislation has significant revisions that will rectify injustices and hardships for America's greatest heroes that we have allowed to fester for far too long. This is the year we can and must make health care available to many military retirees for whom the military health care system is broken. This is the year we must Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from New York. Mr. Speaker, next month we will mark the fourth anniversary of the President's decision to launch a war of choice against Iraq. Many of us came to the floor of this House in the weeks before the invasion to urge the President to take a different course. The White House ignored those appeals for restraint. The President's mantra was, and these are his words, ``Bring it on.'' For almost 4 years after the invasion, the President had a rubber- stamp Congress right here that never seriously questioned his misguided policies in Iraq. It was the ``see no problems, hear no problems, conduct no oversight'' Congress. When the President stood below the banner ``Mission Accomplished'' aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003, the rubber-stamp Congress believed the slogan, rather than the facts on the ground. When Vice President Cheney declared that the insurgency was in ``its final throes'' back in May 2005, the Republican Congress accepted that verdict without question. When the President unveiled his so-called ``Plan For Victory'' at the Naval Academy in November 2005, the old Congress dutifully parroted the talking points sent down from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The days of the rubber-stamp Congress are now over. This Congress will no longer serve as the mouthpiece for the White House. This Congress is finally standing up to do its job as a separate and coequal branch of government. Mr. Speaker, the message from the last election was clear. The American people have an uncanny ability to cut through the slogans and get to the heart of the matter. They understood clearly that more of the same in Iraq was not working. And the American people understand what both General Casey and General Abizaid have told us: that the escalation of more troops in Iraq is not the answer; that it will make matters worse, not better. Increasing the number of American troops in Iraq will put off the day when the Iraqis, the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds, must make the difficult compromises necessary to achieve political and national reconciliation. Putting more American forces in the middle of a bloody sectarian civil war will only lead to further violence and more American and more Iraqi casualties. It is time for the Iraqis to assume more responsibility, not less. The Bush administration has been wrong about this war from the beginning and it is wrong with respect to its proposed course of action now. The recommendations of the bipartisan, independent Baker-Hamilton Commission provide for the responsible redeployment of our forces and represents the best way forward in Iraq. And to those who would suggest that having this debate will undermine our troops, I say shame on you. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace put that canard to rest just last week when he said, ``There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.'' Our men and women fighting in Iraq understand the strength and vibrancy of this democracy, and they understand that it is our duty in this Congress to exercise our best judgment for America's national security. What has harmed our national security is not the debate in Iraq, but the lack of serious oversight over the Bush administration's decisions and conduct. What emboldens our enemies is not the exercise of our democracy, but misguided policies that have weakened our national security. Our national security is weakened when our credibility around the world is undermined by false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Our national security is weakened when the chaos in Iraq allows Iran to greatly expand its influence in the region. Our national security is weakened when America's diminished standing in the world has eroded our ability to influence the actions of others. Our national security is weakened because we have diverted our attention away from completing the mission against the architects of 9/11, against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the terrorist network that continues to operate along the Afghan-Pakistan border. We must change course. We must strengthen our national security position, not compound the errors we have already made. That is what this resolution is all about. We hope the President will join us in that effort. Let's chart a new direction now together.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Everyone Deserves Unconditional Access to Education Act, a bill to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I thank my colleagues, Representatives Ferguson and Hooley, for their work on this bill. Madam Speaker, it was more than 30 years ago that Congress passed IDEA, requiring states to provide an appropriate education to students with special needs. At that time, Congress promised states that it would cover 40 percent of the costs to meet this goal. However, Congress has yet to fulfill its promise to states. In fact, Congress has never met even half of its commitment. This is unacceptable. The bill I introduce today with Representatives Ferguson and Hooley will fulfill our promise to states with guaranteed funding increases for IDEA every year. It will relieve the burden on states and ensure a quality education for all special needs students. And it will restore the integrity of this Congress by ensuring that a promise made is a promise kept. Madam Speaker, states and students have waited more than 30 years for Congress to fulfill its pledge. I encourage members from both sides of the aisle to join with Representatives Ferguson, Hooley, and me to support our schools and provide our students with the resources they need.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today, as we begin observance of Black History Month, to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, a leader in the struggle for civil rights and worker protection. Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo won an historic lawsuit in 2000 against the Environmental Protection Agency for race, sex, and color discrimination and a hostile work environment. As a result of this victory and her subsequent testimony before Congress, the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act (``NO FEAR Act'') was passed by Congress and signed into law. Thousands of federal workers and their families have benefited from this law. After passage of this legislation, Dr. Coleman-Adebayo formed the No FEAR Coalition, a group of civil rights and whistle-blowing organizations dedicated to working for increased legislative protections for federal employees, who speak out to protect the public good. We must ensure that these courageous individuals are not penalized. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo has had a distinguished academic career. She earned a B.A. degree from Barnard College/Columbia University and a doctorate degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She holds an academic chair at George Mason University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Studies. She has also taught at MIT, American University and the University of California at Santa Barbara. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo has served at the United Nations, representing it in Ethiopia and Tanzania. At the National Summit on Africa, she chaired the Sustainable Development and Environment Expert Group and was the Executive Secretary for the U.S./South Africa Bi-national Commission. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo's work has been frequently recognized and she has received numerous honors and awards, including Harvard University's award for Outstanding Commitment to Global Health and Development and Good Housekeeping Magazine's Woman of the Year. She was selected by the National Whistleblower Center as one of the most influential ``truth- tellers'' in the United States and was inducted into the Project on Government Oversight's Hall of Fame. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo is the subject of a major motion picture, currently in production, entitled ``No FEAR: The Marsha Coleman-Adebayo Story.'' Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo for her lifelong commitment to civil and workers' rights.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, last week I introduced H.R. 695, the Taxpayer Abuse and Harassment Prevention Act of 2007, along with Representatives Steve Rothman, Russ Carnahan and 42 other original cosponsors. If enacted into law, this legislation would repeal the provision tacked onto the 2004 corporate tax bill (H.R. 4520, the so- called American Jobs Creation Act in the 108th Congress) that hands over the tax returns of millions of American taxpayers to private contractors to collect delinquent taxes, and allows them to keep 25 percent of their take as a commission for services rendered. Three weeks ago, on January 9th, in her annual report to Congress the National Taxpayer Advocate identified the IRS' private debt collection initiative as one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers and called on Congress to repeal the IRS's authority to use private collection agencies to collect federal taxes. The Advocate's report illustrated why the IRS private tax collection program is a waste of taxpayer dollars, invites overly aggressive collection techniques and jeopardizes the financial privacy of American taxpayers: The IRS's Private Debt Collection initiative is not cost efficient, adds unnecessary costs and burdens to taxpayers, diminishes the improved image of the IRS, and surrenders too many valuable components of our tax administration system. Therefore, Congress should repeal IRC Sec. 6306 and thereby terminate the Private Debt Collection initiative. We must repeal this provision because it opens the door to taxpayer intimidation and abuse, practices that have been outlawed by Congress. This practice amounts to bounty-hunting--at taxpayer expense--by allowing collection agencies to harass those same American taxpayers, many of whom are guilty of nothing, with the incentive of collecting their commission as their primary motivation. Giving unaccountable outside bounty hunters unfettered access to Americans' personal financial data poses a risk that we just cannot afford. What's more worrisome is the IRS' inability to oversee the work of these private debt collectors. A 1996 pilot program for private collection was so unsuccessful that a similar pilot program planned for 1997 was cancelled outright. The contractors used in the pilot programs regularly broke the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, did not protect the security of personal taxpayer information, and even then failed to bring in a net increase in revenue. An audit report of the pilot program found that, ``contractors blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel identified inappropriate practices.'' In fact, the report found that contractors made hundreds of calls to taxpayers during times prohibited by the FDCPA, and that calls were even placed as early as 4:19 a.m. While IRS employees are explicitly forbidden from being evaluated on the basis of revenue collected, the private collection scheme would actually link contractor pay to the amount of revenue collection. This policy encourages contractors to use aggressive collection techniques to boost their remuneration. Furthermore, the IRS is currently liable for damages to a taxpayer resulting from the misuse of confidential information by an IRS employee, but taxpayers will not be able to recover damages from the federal government where contractors are guilty of malfeasance. The House had already expressed its will that this provision not become law when it approved by voice vote an amendment to the FY2005 Treasury Appropriations bill that prevented the expenditure of any federal funds for private collection of federal taxes. Unfortunately, the Treasury Appropriations bill never became law, and the House language was stripped out of the FY 2005 omnibus spending bill by the Republican leadership in the conference--behind closed doors, in the dead of night. We must repeal this onerous provision. We must protect American taxpayers from intimidation and abuse. We must ensure that personal financial records are protected and remain private. Two decades ago this Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act specifically to protect Americans from intimidation and abuse, but last year this Congress perpetrated an injustice by allowing these very abuses to go forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in working with the IRS to find a more effective means of collecting delinquent tax debt collection and avoid this risky scheme altogether. Let's pass the Taxpayer Abuse and Harassment Prevention Act.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Bundling Disclosure Act. While we have already made tremendous strides in the 110th Congress by passing many ethics reform measures, in the first 100 hours, our work is not done. We must continue to move forward to ensure that the proper relationship is maintained between Members of Congress and lobbyists who advance their clients, legislative interests before Congress. This bill is an important step in the direction of adding some sunlight to the activities of lobbyists who have business before the Congress while at the same time providing campaign contributions, co-hosting events or collecting and transmitting the contributions of others. While lobbyists are subject to the same legal limitations as any other individual regarding the amount of a contribution they can make to a Member's campaign, some lobbyists also solicit, gather and transmit the contributions of others to Members. This ``bundling'' practice enables lobbyists to enhance their significance to a Member of Congress and consequently, this practice should be transparent to the public This disclosure to the American people is essential in order to provide the accountability that so many voters demanded as a result of the abuses that took place in the recent past. We need to create transparency around the campaign finance practices of registered lobbyists. As Justice Brandeis has said, ``sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' Last year, I amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act, in the Judiciary Committee, to require lobbyists to disclose their bundling of funds. This amendment was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 28 to 4 and was the subject of a Washington Post editorial on April 13, 2005 entitled, ``Real Lobbying Reform, A House Committee Tackles the Nexus Between Campaign Cash and Legislative Influence''. Unfortunately, a funny thing happened on the way to the Rules Committee. This bundling disclosure provision was mysteriously stripped from the bill without a vote or comment. Any effort to add the provision back into the bill in the Rules Committee or on the House floor was blocked. Therefore, I was pleased to see that Senators Feingold and Obama drafted a similar provision in the 110th Congress. The Senate's bundling disclosure requirement was included in the Senate Ethics bill that passed by a vote of 96 to 2. This bill that I am introducing today with Congressman Meehan contains the same provision. The American people spoke loud and clear during the last election. They want reform. They want this Congress to correct the abuses of the past. This bill will shed much needed light on the murky intersection of fundraising and the legislative process. I urge you to support this bill so that we can restore the American people's faith in Congress and put the public interest before the special interests.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, it is with a sense of urgency that I reintroduce the Keep Our Promises to America's Children and Teachers Act at the beginning of the 110th Congress. I offer the Keep Our PACT Act today to help meet the aspirations of our Nation's schoolchildren--and to help provide all of their teachers and schools with the resources they need to help them achieve those aspirations. Additionally, I offer this bill as a reminder to those of us in government of the importance of keeping our promises and of truly making education a priority. Put it simply, the Keep Our PACT Act would put Congress on a fiscally responsible path to fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act--on a mandatory basis, once and for all. Madam Speaker, the 2006 Education Appropriations bill funded No Child Left Behind at $23.51 billion, over $1 billion less than the previous year and $13.36 billion below the 2006 authorized level. As a result, over 3.1 million students are not getting the extra Title I help they were promised under NCLB. Furthermore, the 2006 Education Appropriations bill continued underfunding IDEA at $10.7 billion--less than half of the 40% average per pupil expenditure the government originally promised states more than 30 years ago. By keeping our commitments to NCLB and IDEA, we can support our schools and provide all of our students with resources they need to succeed. Madam Speaker, once again I am proud to make the Keep Our PACT Act the very first piece of legislation I introduce in this Congress. Additionally, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill today. We pledge to stand for the fundamental values this bill represents and invite Members from both sides of the aisle to embrace those values and get this bill passed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, it was just about a year ago that the President of the United States came before this Congress and told the country that America is addicted to oil. He was right then and many of us were pleased to hear him acknowledge that very real fact. However, even as we all acknowledge the seriousness of the energy challenge we face as a Nation, the President and the last Congress failed to actually do something about it. We heard great words, but didn't see good deeds. In fact, rather than invest adequately in renewable energy and energy efficiency, we took the opposite approach. We gave greater breaks in taxes to the oil and gas industry even as prices at the pump went up and profits soared. That policy only served to feed the addiction to oil, not break that addiction. It made us more dependent, not less dependent on oil and gas and the volatile regions of the world that control the greatest reserves. This is a time to change direction, to set a new course on energy policy, to say to the country: We're not just talking rhetoric. We mean what we say.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller, for his work on this and other education issues, as well as my other colleagues. It is interesting to hear people talk about the fact that this does not totally reduce the cost of going to college when, for the past many years, this body has not delivered on that commitment to the American people. In the last campaign, we did make a commitment to reduce the cost of going to college, and this bill is a follow-through on that commitment, and we will reduce the cost. We know in this country that one of the greatest impediments we have to people getting ahead is the burden of the cost of college tuition, a burden that has risen dramatically over the years. Right now, many students who graduate from college are faced with a big debt burden that takes a long time to retire, and even worse than that is the number of students who are deterred from even going to college in the first place because of the cost of going to college and the debts they will incur. This bill takes a significant step toward reducing that burden and opening up the doors of opportunities. We lose some of the very best and brightest in this country who have the ambition to go out and learn, who are qualified to go out there, who have done the work and gotten the grades, and because of the high costs are prohibited from going forward. In fact, about 4.4 million students are essentially deterred from going to college it is estimated over the next 10 years as a result of these high costs. So, yes, during the last campaign this was a very, very important issue to the American people. Instead of raising the costs of going to college, instead of cutting $13 billion from higher education as was done in the last Congresses, we said, we are going to turn that around; we are going to make it easier for people to go to college; we are going to open the doors of opportunity, not just because it is the right thing to do to make sure that every individual has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential, but because our Nation needs to make sure we do that in this competitive era.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, H.R. 4. This legislation is long overdue. Quite simply, H.R. 4 repeals the provision in current law that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices for those enrolled in Medicare prescription drug plans and instead requires the Secretary to conduct such negotiations. As it stands right now, Medicare is the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower drug prices. The states, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration (VA) all use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the populations they serve. It is quite astonishing that the current law prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower prices while the VA is able to negotiate for lower prices for veterans. By not allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, the responsibility for moderating drug prices is in the hands of the private drug plans that participate in Medicare. With the failure of private plans to deliver lower drug prices, Medicare beneficiaries end up paying higher out-of-pocket expenses. This failure is also a burden on taxpayers, as they pay approximately three-fourths of the costs of the Part D program. We simply cannot rely solely on private market competition to secure lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, a recent report conducted by Families USA found that Medicare Part D drug prices are much higher than those obtained by the VA. This comprehensive study determined that for half of the top 20 drugs prescribed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries, the lowest price charged by Part D insurers is at least 58 percent higher than the same drugs provided to veterans by the VA. It is obvious that the pharmaceutical companies participating in Medicare Part D have failed to achieve what former CMS Administrator Mark McClellan claimed, ``the best discounts on drugs.'' We can, and must, do better in lowering drug prices in the Medicare Part D program. We must stand up for seniors and people with disabilities and give Medicare the ability to get the lowest possible prices for its beneficiaries. America's seniors and taxpayers will benefit from this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3). This bipartisan legislation will provide countless number of Americans hope of finding cures for many life-threatening diseases. I strongly believe stem cell research holds the promise of scientific breakthroughs that could improve the lives of millions of Americans afflicted with a debilitating disease--such as Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease, and cancer--for which there is currently no cure. For these patients and their families, stem cell research is the last hope for a cure. I wholeheartedly believe we should allow the expansion of federally supported research of human embryonic stem cell lines. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 would provide federal for a wider range of stem cell research while establishing ethical guidelines. In addition, the legislation would provide that embryos that are otherwise likely to be discarded can be used to develop treatments for debilitating diseases and life-saving cures. I was extremely disappointed that the President exercised his first veto on a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support. A majority ofthe American people support stem cell research. In the last election, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure to allow stem cell research in that state. It is expected that the Senate will pass H.R. 3. If that is the case, I hope the President will listen to Congress and the American people rather than to the extreme right of his own political party and not wield his veto pen on this promising legislation. We must put the health of the American people over politics. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects every family in America. I strongly urge my House colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the distinguished career of Mr. Gilbert Lessenco and to congratulate him on his retirement. Mr. Lessenco has dedicated his half century of legal practice to not only his clients, but his community and his country. Mr. Lessenco's superior performance as a lawyer was recognized early in his career when he received the ``Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year'' from the District of Columbia Bar in 1965. Mr. Lessenco has been in private practice for 50 years, but prior to that he served in the United States Air Force as chief, legal officer at Hanscom Air Force Base in Lexington, MA. He continues to serve his community to this day as a member of the faculty at Johns Hopkins University School of Professional Studies in Business and Education, teaching marketing and business law. His commitment to his students was honored publicly when he received the ``Above and Beyond'' faculty award from the Department of Marketing. Mr. Lessenco earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1953 and his B.S. from the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. Mr. Lessenco has also had an active civic and political career. He has been an active supporter of the Democratic Party since 1958. From 1970-74, Mr. Lessenco was a member of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee and has been engaged in Democratic Party politics ever since. He served as a commissioner of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission from 1987-92 and as its chairman from 1989-90. He has also served as chairman of the International Visitors Service Council, 1962, trustee for the Meridian House Foundation, 1970-80, president of the Mental Health Association of Montgomery County, 1980- 82, and president of the Jewish Social Service Agency of Greater Washington, 1984-86, and currently serves as the co-chairman for St. Luke's House Building Fund. Mr. Lessenco is also a dedicated husband, father and treasured mentor. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere congratulations to Gil Lessenco as he celebrates a distinguished career and lifetime of learning and serving our community. I ask my colleagues of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the many accomplishments of this extraordinary man.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the legislators from Pacific Rim countries who will assemble this weekend in Taiwan to explore the role of Congresses in democratic governments. Representatives from 20 Pacific Rim Countries are meeting under the auspices of the Democratic Pacific Union (DPU). The DPU is a regional organization of Pacific nations that is promoting democracy and peace within that region, in addition to enhancing the multilateral relationships of the participating nations. I applaud the Taiwanese who took the initiative to establish the DPU and its sister organization, the Pacific Congress, I wish the DPU much success in continuing to strengthen the democracies and the vital regional alliances of its Member countries.