Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 843, the Combating Autism Act of 2006. As a long-time supporter and friend of the autism community, I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation is before the full House today. Autism is a lifelong neurological disorder that usually strikes sometime within the first two years of a child's life. It can cause severe impairment in language, cognition and communication. The statistics on autism are staggering. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in every 166 children is affected by autism. Autism is one of the fastest-growing developmental disabilities in the United States. There has been significant progress in recent years increasing autism research dollars at the National Institutes of Health, as well as surveillance and public health funding at the CDC. Current research indicates that autism has a strong genetic component and may be triggered by environmental factors. But much more needs to be done. We need to redouble our effort to find a cure and improved intervention techniques. That is why I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the House version of the Combating Autism Act. The legislation before us today would authorize increased funding at the NIH for autism research programs as well as expand screening, intervention and education programs within the Federal Government. It is important that we promote funding for autism research in order to identify the best methods of early intervention and treatment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Jelka Jankovic on her 100th birthday, which she celebrated on November 25, 2006. Since her immigration to the United States over fifty years ago, Mrs. Jankovic has been a model citizen, contributing to her community and bringing joy to the lives of family members and friends. Mrs. Jankovic married Janko N. Jankovic, a lawyer, on October 4, 1925 in Serbia. Their son, Miodrag, was born in 1926. For the first part of her married life, Mrs. Jankovic concentrated on raising her son and running her household. In 1942 her son joined the army to fight the Germans and later the Communists. Tragically, he was lost in the war. Meanwhile, her husband who was serving in the Royal Yugoslav Reserve Forces, was captured by the Germans and spent the war years in a POW camp in Germany. Mr. Jankovic immigrated to the United States in 1950 and settled in Washington, D.C. where Mrs. Jankovic joined him in 1953. Mrs. Jankovic has been an active and productive member of her community for over fifty years. She has worked as a private tailor, a baker at a French restaurant, and a beautician at a local salon. After retiring, Mrs. Jankovic moved to Bethesda, Maryland where she is well- known and loved for her generosity and kindness. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Jankovic as she celebrates her 100th birthday and I wish her good health and happiness. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Jankovic.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a venerable public servant and retired veteran, Dr. John L. Withers, born on September 18, 1916, in Greensboro, North Carolina and now living in my congressional district. Dr. Withers served as a first lieutenant during World War II, commanding a segregated African-American quartermaster company, and received an honorable discharge in 1947. Despite strict Army regulations and the difficulties imposed by segregation, Dr. Withers always performed bravely and with the highest moral and ethical standards. Indeed, during the war, Dr. Withers courageously rescued two Polish Jewish orphan boys from the Dachau concentration camp. Thanks to his heroic efforts, one of those boys became a successful businessman in Connecticut. Dr. Withers stayed in touch with that young man all of his life. After serving as a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, Dr. Withers devoted his life to international development efforts. He was stationed in Laos, Thailand and Burma before serving with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Seoul, Korea in 1960. Later, he worked as a USAID representative in India before becoming Director of USAID's regional services office in Nairobi, Kenya. His primary responsibility included supporting the operations of various USAID missions in nine African countries, including Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. His last duty before retiring was to serve as USAID Mission Director for Ethiopia. Dr. Withers recently celebrated his 90th birthday with his devoted wife Daisy and his sons John Jr. and Gregory. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join with me in honoring Dr. Withers on this wonderful occasion and to recognize him as a man of good deeds, a sharp wit, gentle sense of humor and outstanding accomplishments. I am delighted to wish Dr. Withers a year of good health and happiness and to thank him for his extraordinary contributions to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today, on Dutch American Heritage Day, I rise to recognize the history of warm relations the Dutch and American people have shared for over 400 years and also to celebrate the many contributions of Dutch Americans to U.S. history. Americans of Dutch descent include Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor Roosevelt, whose courage and strength helped lead the American people through difficult times in our Nation's past. Their ranks also include President Martin Van Buren, Walt Whitman, and Thomas Edison--and Senator Arthur Vandenberg who helped shape U.S. foreign policy after World War II. The Dutch were deeply involved in the exploration of the New World and the settlement of the early colonies. In 1609, while searching for an easy route to Asia, Captain Henry Hudson discovered the river that bears his name. Soon after, Dutch settlements began springing up throughout and beyond modern-day New York State into what is now Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. Today, Americans of Dutch descent live in concentrations in Michigan, California, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, Ohio, and Illinois. The ties between the United States and the Netherlands date back to the earliest days of the Republic. It was the Dutch who first recognized the United States of America and The Hague was home to the first American embassy in the world. The American people will not soon forget how on November 16, 1776, as the American warship, Andrew Doria, entered the harbor of the Dutch island of St. Eustatius in the West Indies, the fort fired a salute, recognizing the flag of the United States of America--the first of such acts by any country. This salute heralded the beginning of a relationship that would persist, unbroken, for three centuries. Today we also celebrate the people of the Netherlands who have stood beside us in good and bad times since the War of Independence. The Dutch granted the U.S. Congress its first loan, helping to sustain a struggling Nation at one of its lowest points; in the wake of Pearl Harbor, the Dutch were among the first nations to align themselves with the U.S. and they fought proudly with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions in the occupied Netherlands during the Second World War. Today, the Dutch stand by us still in the ranks of NATO and among our troops in the ongoing efforts to combat terrorism in Afghanistan. Dutch American Heritage Day is a special day not only because it celebrates the heritage and contribution of Americans of Dutch descent but because the day is also a celebration of a friendship that has helped shape and sustain our Nation from the days of its infancy. We are thankful to the people of the Netherlands and we look forward to continued strong ties and goodwill for years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. Let us be clear about one thing. As we have all said, we understand that electronic surveillance is a vital tool in the war on terror. We all want to know when Osama bin Laden is calling: when he is calling, who he is calling, and what he is saying. Existing law, FISA, gives the President the authority to do that. And if the President wants greater flexibility in using that authority, he should come to the Congress and tell us exactly what additional authority he needs. As has been said, this Congress has already amended FISA, the electronic surveillance law, more than 25 times since 9/11 to accommodate changing technologies. That is why it was so troubling to learn that what we as a Congress did in the PATRIOT Act with respect to electronic surveillance was essentially a meaningless exercise. We gave the President expanded authorities, but the President has since argued that he can go beyond the expanded authorities that we gave him, and he has ignored the work of the Judiciary Committee and this Congress. On what basis does he do this? This President claims when it comes to conducting electronic surveillance he is, in the final analysis, not constrained by the laws passed by this Congress. He claims his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief under article II in this area ultimately allows him to ignore the will of the Congress. Take a look at the administration's legal memorandum of January 19, 2006. Essentially, they say that we don't have the power ultimately to regulate in this area. And I find it incredibly curious that after the Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, adopted language proposed by Mr. Flake that simply said Congress finds that article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution, known as the necessary and proper clause, grants Congress clear authority to regulate the President's inherent power to gather foreign intelligence. That was passed on a bipartisan basis. It is gone from this bill. Mr. Flake's amendment is gone from this bill. That is taken out of this bill. Now, imagine, here we are as a Congress, in passing a law that seeks to regulate the President's authority in this area, albeit giving him additional authorities, that in passing that law we strip out the provision that says we as a Congress find that we have the power to regulate in this area. It is a total abdication of congressional responsibility. It is ceding the President's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area. I believe, ultimately, it is a dangerous power grab on behalf of the administration; and this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has not stood up to our responsibilities under the Constitution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Marilyn Gaston and Dr. Gayle Porter, co-recipients of the 2006 Purpose Prize. Drs. Gaston and Porter have been recognized for innovation and success in using their lifetime of experience for the greater good. After full careers in different health fields, Drs. Gaston and Porter teamed up to address the alarming early death and disability rates among middle aged African American women. They wrote Prime Time: The African American Woman's Complete Guide to Midllife Health and Wellness and then created an innovative health course and support group model. ``Prime Time Sister Circles'' has become a popular and proven health initiative in Maryland and other states, with 68 percent of the participants maintaining their health improvements for more than a year. This outstanding model should be replicated throughout our country. I want to recognize the role of The Purpose Prize itself in changing our society's view of aging. The positive impact of the five Purpose Prize winners on thousands of people in need reveals that America's growing older population is one of our greatest untapped resources. In 2005-06 over 1,200 adults age 60 and over competed for the $100,000 cash prizes and related rewards of publicity and support for their entrepreneurial projects. Civic Ventures, the California-based non- profit organization that created the prize program, is dedicated to generating ideas and creating programs to help society achieve the greatest return on experience. I invite my colleagues to join me in furthering this view of older adults as significant contributors to our communities and nation. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Marilyn Gaston and Dr. Gayle Porter on receiving the prestigious Purpose Prize in its first year and I wish them continued success. I also commend Civic Ventures, along with Purpose Prize funders, The Atlantic Philanthropies and The John Templeton Foundation, for their vision and generosity in creating this important stimulus for expanding citizen initiative for public good.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we now know what the administration wanted to hide from the American people: that the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies is that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse, not better; that it has fueled the jihadist movement and made us less safe, and not more safe. The Bush administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about alleged collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and they are wrong about this bill. This bill will weaken, not strengthen, our national security. They are wrong because this bill will place our troops in Iraq and elsewhere around the world in greater danger of torture, both today and in future conflicts. They are wrong because this bill will further erode our already tarnished credibility and moral standing around the world. Let us always remember that our strength flows not only from the force of our military but from the power of our example. And they are wrong because we have learned the hard way that information extracted through torture and extreme coercion can be unreliable. Remember when Secretary Powell at the United Nations told the world that Saddam Hussein had mobile bioweapons labs? That information came from a person that we turned over to Egypt who was tortured, and the CIA has since acknowledged that information was false, and yet that was important information that was used as part of our argument to go to war in Iraq. This is a defining moment for our Congress and our country. It will define who we are as a people and what we stand for, and yet it gives the President too much of a blank check to unilaterally decide that answer for all of us. It gives the President the authority to unilaterally define what constitutes specific acts of torture. It gives the President the authority to unilaterally decide who can be detained as an enemy combatant, including American citizens, and, therefore, send them into a legal limbo. Mr. Speaker, when we take very important decisions in the name of the American people, we better get it right. This bill gets it wrong.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to express my strong support for H.R. 6164, the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006. I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing a bipartisan bill to this floor. It is long overdue for Congress to reauthorize the NIH--the last NIH authorization was 13 years ago. This bill authorizes 5 percent increases in funding for the NIH annually through FY 2009. In addition, it will increase the effectiveness of research efforts by reducing repetitive research and maximize strategic coordination and planning. This reauthorization will improve the transparency of research activities, accountability of research dollars and coordination of research efforts at the NIH. The reforms that are proposed in this bill will allow the NIH to continue to achieve groundbreaking scientific discoveries that will benefit millions of Americans. While this NIH reauthorization bill provides for increased funding for each fiscal year, I am extremely disappointed that Congress has not recently followed suit the last few years. After successfully doubling the NIH budget over 5 years in a bipartisan manner that ended in 2003, funding for the NIH since 2004 has failed to keep up with inflation. And funding was cut in actual dollar terms for the first time in 36 years in 2006 by $62 million. For 2007, the President and the Republican congressional leadership have proposed a freeze in NIH funding. In addition, all 19 Institutes would receive less funding in the House version of the FY 2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This is going in the wrong direction. If Congress does not provide annual funding increases for the NIH, the reforms undertaken in the NIH Reauthorization bill will be less meaningful because we will not be able to provide the NIH and scientists the resources to discover new breakthroughs in biomedical research. Those discoveries, in turn, will lead to better ways of diagnosing and treating many diseases. I am very proud of the fact that the National Institutes of Health has its home in my congressional district. We also have a flourishing biomedical research industry--with the help of the NIH--that is on the threshold of many new discoveries and many new cures. We have the potential for breakthroughs in so many areas. While I support the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006, Congress must adequately fund the NIH at the level it deserves. Now is not the time to rest.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York. This bill, which is presented to the Congress under the banner of a so- called American values agenda, turns American values on their head. It is an example of false advertising at its very worst, and it forgets the lessons of American history. This great country of ours was founded largely on the principle of religious liberty. Many of our earlier settlers to this country came to our shores to escape religious persecution from their mother countries. They didn't want the Church of England or any other government telling them how they should worship God, and they sought to escape a state- imposed religion, to escape the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. They wanted to practice religion according to the dictates of their own conscience, not the dictates of the state. And that is why the first amendment to the United States Constitution gives each individual the right of religious liberty and why it bars the state from imposing and establishing a state religion. If this Congress and this government now seeks to impose certain religious faiths upon an individual, that individual can invoke the protections of the United States Constitution. Now, I would think all of us, all of us in this body, would agree that an individual should not have to pay to enjoy the protections of the United States Constitution. Those rights are given to each of us as American citizens under the Constitution, and we shouldn't have to pay when the state, whether it is a local government, a State government, or the Federal Government, violates those rights under the establishment clause or anything else. Yet that is exactly what this bill does. Under current law, if the court finds a statute is violating your constitutional rights under the establishment clause, the State has to pay the cost that you incurred in protecting your rights against the State. If your government deprives you of your constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, the government should pay, not you, the individual citizen. This is a question of the force and muscle of the government and the States against an individual in trying to deprive an individual of his or her constitutionally protected right. I would ask, since when is it an American value that you have to pay to enjoy the protections of our constitution? Since when is an American value that the government can trample on your religious liberty, deprive you of your rights, and then, when a court of law, whether the Supreme Court, a Federal Court, or any other court, has found indeed that the government did deprive you of your constitutional rights and you were right as an individual and the government was wrong, that you have to pay and not the government? That is simply a way, when you think about it, that the government can discourage individual citizens from enforcing their constitutional rights. They have to take on the government. They have to take on people with lots of resources. Yet, at the end of the day, even when they win, and the court agrees that their constitutional rights have been violated, it is the citizen that has to pay to enjoy those protections, not the government. This debate is about American values, and if you want to protect those American values and you want to protect the Constitution of the United States, you should vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his leadership on this and for pointing out the law enforcement agencies that are opposed to this important legislation and in favor of the arguments that we put forth in opposition. And, again, I just cite from David DiBetta, who is the president of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association ATF division, who said: ``This bill would be crippling to their efforts to enforce our gun laws.'' International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Alexandria, VA, September 20, 2006. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: The International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO). representing federal, state and local police officers around the country, strongly opposes H.R. 5092, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ``Modernization and Reform'' Act. This senseless legislation would serve only to cripple law enforcement's ability to track and prevent the flow of illegal guns across the country. H.R. 5092 diminishes the ATF's ability to revoke, suspend or fine gun dealers by unnecessarily raising the standard of proof required for adverse action from federal investigators against gun dealers who blatantly violate federal law regulating the sale and transfer of guns. In addition, H.R 5092 reclassifies serious violations of federal gun to lesser or ``minor'' violations resulting in negligent or criminal dealers being held to a lower standard, and in some cases, giving them a free ride because guns claimed as ``lost'' from their inventory would be impossible to trace if recovered at a crime scene. Another shameless provision of H.R. 5092 would allow gun dealers whose licenses have been revoked for violations of federal law to continue operating for 60 days after revocation. The ATF would have to allow these negligent or criminal gun dealers to continue to sell guns for 60 days after issuing a revocation. The IBPO stands strongly against H.R. 5092 because of its detrimental effects to proven, successful crime fighting tools used by federal agents and local police. A vote for H.R. 5092 in any form is a vote against police officers and it's a vote against the safety of our communities. H.R. 5092 serves no justifiable purpose to law enforcement or legitimate gun owners. We urge you to vote against this unnecessary and dangerous legislation. Respectfully, Steve Lenkart, Director of Legislative Affairs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), even though he is in support of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill says that its purpose is to, and I quote, modernize and reform, unquote, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. But what it really does, under the guise of so-called modernization and reform, is to make it virtually impossible for Federal law enforcement officers in the ATF to revoke the licenses of those gun dealers who have violated the gun laws. It guts their power to go after the worst offenders. You don't have to take my word for it. Let me just read to you from the first paragraph of a letter that was sent to Members of Congress on June 30 of this year: As former officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 5092, the so-called ATF Modernization and Reform Act. Far from modernizing ATF, this legislation would severely undermine the Bureau and protect corrupt gun dealers and gun traffickers. If passed, this bill would make it extremely difficult for ATF to successfully prosecute gun traffickers and dealers who break the law or to revoke dealers' licenses. They go on to specifically point out that the requirement that the ATF prove that a gun trafficker or corrupt gun dealer not only broke the law, only specifically intended to break the law, would make it virtually impossible for ATF to successfully enforce our Nation's gun laws. That is signed by a number of former members of the ATF, including two of the former directors of ATF. Let me also quote from David DiBetta, who is an 18-year veteran of the ATF and who is President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association's ATF Division. He said it very simply: ``It could be crippling.'' Look, people have said when various Members of Congress have proposed new gun safety laws. They have said, just enforce the laws on the books. And we need to enforce the laws on the books. So what is especially troubling is that we are here today not to increase enforcement of the laws on the books but to weaken the ability of Federal law enforcement officers to go after the worst offenders. I find it somewhat puzzling that we are gathered here in what has been dubbed by some so-called ``Security September'' to consider a bill that ties the hands of Federal law enforcement officers and gives a break to those few bad apples among the gun dealers who sell mostly to the criminal market. That is what is especially puzzling. According to the ATF itself, nearly 60 percent of the guns that are sold to the criminal market are sold by just 1 percent of the gun dealers. The vast majority of people who are selling guns in this country are honest, law-abiding citizens. But this bill isn't designed to help them. This bill will help those who are the worst violators. In a little bit I am going to go into how this impacts my State of Maryland where the ATF has been trying to revoke the license of one of the worst violators. But he ran down here to Capitol Hill to lobby against the ATF officials, and here we are on the floor. His voice seems to have a stronger influence than the voice of so many law enforcement officers who are out here, as well as others. I will just close this portion with this. This has also been presented to us, this bill, as part of the so-called ``American Values Agenda.'' This bill is part of the American Values Agenda. And I just want to know, Mr. Speaker, since when did protecting the worst violators of the law become part of an American value? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my votes in opposition to H.R. 5059 and H.R. While I agree with the substance of these bills, I strongly opposed the decision of the House Republican leadership to use these important bills as part of an effort to play politics with the environment. The Republicans had an opportunity to vote on the New England Wilderness Act (S. 2463), bipartisan legislation passed by the Senate last week that would designate wilderness areas in both New Hampshire and Vermont. Instead they chose to separate the New Hampshire wilderness areas into two pieces of legislation and refused to include the Vermont wilderness in either bill. They apparently did this to hand a victory to the Republican representative from New Hampshire but deny Rep. Sanders a legislative win on the eve of his upcoming Senate election in Vermont. Shame on them. By putting these bills on the Suspension Calendar, the Republican leadership ensured that wilderness bills in New England will not be signed into law this year as it is virtually impossible to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills given the amount of time left in this legislative session. The New England Wilderness Act enjoys the full backing of the two states' bicameral, tripartisan delegation. It is disappointing that in the final days of this Congress, Republicans are abusing their power and the American people are paying the price.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I think it is fitting that we honor the service of Alice Brusich to the postal service by naming this post office in her honor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important and appropriate that we recognize the sacrifice and service of Captain Petty and Major Hecker in this way. I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support this resolution, where we recognize the PGA of America's efforts to spread the game of golf and also for the PGA's many charitable works and their efforts to expand and include more people in the game of golf, both through their work with the Special Olympics, as well as their reaching out to people who have served our country in the Armed Forces overseas. Also I would like to note that they have served our troops through programs such as their partnership with the National Amputee Golf Association, which offers golfing activities for wounded soldiers. These are just a few of the many programs that have been offered by PGA of America and the PGA Foundation. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 3508, and commend Chairman Davis and Representative Norton for working to bring this important bill to the floor today. In addition to the items that the chairman mentioned, I would just add that it also contains a requirement that all legislation passed by the D.C. Council be accompanied by a fiscal impact statement. It deals with provisions that would revise the pay cap for nonjudicial court employees to make them more consistent with the way Federal court employees are paid and reimbursed in the Federal system. It also provides additional budget flexibility authorizing the District to continue spending up to 6 percent of its own funds of unappropriated funds throughout the fiscal year without coming to Congress to be a part of the annual supplementations process. Again, I commend the chairman for his leadership, as well as Ms. Norton. I urge the adoption of the legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to congratulate our colleague, Mr. Israel, from New York for introducing this important resolution and drawing attention to this very, very important issue. With that, I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it is appropriate just by unanimous consent to keep going with the other resolutions until Mr. Wolf arrives and set this aside momentarily?