Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent Norman R. Augustine, a recipient of the prestigious Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education. The prize annually recognizes outstanding individuals who have dedicated themselves to improving education in this country and whose accomplishments are making a difference today. Mr. Augustine is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation. He is a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the Advisory Board to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the American Philosophical Society, and is a fellow of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. Mr. Augustine has been chosen to receive the prestigious 19th annual award for his role as Chairman of the National Academies Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy and its work on the highly acclaimed report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' This report illustrates the importance of improving K-12 education in mathematics and science, the nation's commitment to long-term basic research, and United States capacity for technological innovation. Mr. Augustine's credentials as a public servant and engineer are impressive. A five-time recipient of the U.S. Department of Defense's highest civilian decoration, the Distinguished Service Medal, he has served as a lecturer at Princeton University's School of Ergineering and Applied Science Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Augustine for his outstanding contribution to education and ongoing commitment to public service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and express my appreciation for the Task Force on Mentoring of Montgomery County, Maryland. The Task Force is a community-based, non-profit organization that provides crucial services such as mentor training, volunteer mentor recruitment, and organizational and technical support to community organizations and institutions that work to develop mentoring programs. For over 15 years the Task Force has been a pillar of support for at- risk youth in Montgomery County. It has joined us in the battle against gang-related violence through its day-to-day efforts and its upcoming annual conference entitled ``Challenging the Gang Lifestyle--Strategies for Prevention.'' The conference will be held on the Rockville Campus of Johns Hopkins University on October 12, 2006. Thanks to the tireless and steadfast efforts of the Task Force on Mentoring, many of Montgomery County's children and adolescents have been given a real opportunity to become positive, active, and socially conscious citizens. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of its fifteenth annual conference, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the Task Force on Mentoring of Montgomery County.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position on this issue clear. I support the construction of a fence to better secure our border and supported its funding in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. However, this bill simply doesn't provide for a fence. In a typical example of congressional overreaching and micromanagement, the bill specifies exactly how such a fence will be built and the precise location of each segment of the fence. We are neither engineers nor construction managers nor do we know the best alignment of such a fence. We should simply direct the experts to construct a fence that accomplishes the objective of preventing illegal immigration and allow it to be built in the most cost-effective manner.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was a proposal. We made some proposals to address that issue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt, and thank you, Mr. Larson, and others who are gathered here to talk about these very important national security questions. As you pointed out, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Larson, we have taken our eye off the ball here. As we approach the terrible fifth anniversary of the tragic attacks of 2001, September 11, it is important to remember that the attacks upon our homeland were launched by al Qaeda from Afghanistan and had nothing to do with Iraq, nothing to do with Iraq. Yet here, as we gather 5 years later, we have not finished the job in Afghanistan. We have not finished the job against al Qaeda. Indeed, the situation is now getting worse today than it was a year ago and even a year before that. Now, the President has said in the last 10 days that he wants to have a national conversation about Iraq and national security, and he has delivered a number of speeches. But when you listen to what he has had to say, it is clear that unfortunately once again he is not interested in the national conversation. Conversation implies a give and take, a dialogue, an exchange of views. But when you listen to the President, on the one hand he lays out his idea of what he wants to go forward and then engages in finger-pointing and name calling of anybody who disagrees with him. Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have gone around this country engaging in name calling and finger-pointing against anyone who disagrees with them. They got all the answers, they tell us. You know what? For years and years they have gotten away with that by the majority in this Congress. The Republican majority in this Congress has essentially said, yes, you two have all the answers, and we are going to write you a blank check, and we are not going to ask you the hard questions. Well, I am glad the President wants to have a big national conversation. Let's make this a real conversation on national security. I say, let's have it, because I think when the American people look at the facts on the ground, and the fact that this administration has made our world and our country a much more dangerous place than it otherwise had to be, that people will ask questions about whose judgment is best in these matters. Let us just think back to May 2003 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln. The President gave a speech with a big banner behind him, ``mission accomplished,'' mission accomplished. That was May 2003, more than 3 years ago. We haven't finished the mission in Afghanistan, and we have got a mess on our hands in Iraq. Let us just think back to more than a year ago. Vice President Cheney said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its, quote, final throes, the last gasp. Well, we just had a Pentagon report come out a few days ago. Here is what they had to say about that. In addition to a budding civil war or a civil war, they say the Sunni-based insurgency remains, quote, potent and viable. For years now Secretary Rumsfeld has been giving us these sorts of rosy scenarios about what would happen in Iraq, and he has been proven wrong again and again and again. So when the President and his people say to the American people, we have got all the answers, I think the American people get it now that they don't have all the answers. We need to have this debate and this discussion. Let me just quickly go back to the issue of Afghanistan, because the world was with us. We were united as a Nation, we were united as a NATO alliance, and we were united as an international community. The United Nations unanimously passed a resolution saying they were with the United States in its war on terror and its war on al Qaeda. Yet, today, al Qaeda is still active, they are still plotting, they are still trying to do harm to Americans and others around the world. Yet, if you look at what is happening in Afghanistan right now, we have got to be concerned. The United States is not doing all that it should in Afghanistan. The major resurgence has occurred in the southern part of Afghanistan. That has been the stronghold for the Taliban. Yet we have reduced, reduced, the number of U.S. forces in southern Afghanistan. Second, we, the Bush administration, disbanded the only unit within the CIA whose specific mission was to go after al Qaeda. They said, we don't need it anymore. That's what they said about a month ago. That was before the President again quoted Osama bin Laden a few days ago in one of his speeches for why we still need to be concerned. Well, we should be concerned. That is why what we are doing in Afghanistan has not made sense. Third, we just learned the other day that the opium production in Afghanistan is at an all-time record, all-time record. We know that the funds from those sales of those drugs are being used to fuel al Qaeda and the Taliban. Finally, finally, we just learned yesterday of this agreement now between the Government of Pakistan, General Musharraf, has entered into this agreement with the pro-Taliban militia, and the agreement says we, the Pakistan military, will now take a hands-off posture along the northwest frontier, that was the Waziristan part of Pakistan where the Taliban have regrouped and where al Qaeda has regrouped and what they have used to launch attacks into Afghanistan. Now Musharraf is saying, no, that is not what he meant. But it is very clear he has essentially said Pakistan military isn't coming after you anymore, you Taliban who are in that part of Pakistan. We have a hands-off policy. That is simply a signal to them that they can now more freely operate to try to step up their attacks in Afghanistan, that they can continue to collaborate with al Qaeda. So here we are, here we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of those tragic attacks launched from Afghanistan by al Qaeda because they were given safe haven by the Taliban, and we haven't finished the job, and we have reduced the amount of resources that we are committing to completing the mission. Mission accomplished, nowhere near it Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) and thank you for your leadership on these very important national security issues, and as you have suggested, national security issues should not be devoted to just 1 month. We need to make sure that we are watching after the national security every day of this year. I am pleased to join you and Mr. Scott here this evening to discuss these issues because the President has said he wants a national conversation on national security issues in Iraq, but in the same speech, he begins finger pointing; he begins name-calling. Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney are out around the country name- calling and pointing fingers and trying to malign anybody that disagrees with them. That is not a national conversation. Let us have a national conversation. I say, bring it on when it comes to a national security discussion here in the Nation's Capital and throughout the country because, unfortunately, if you look at Iraq, if you look at our national security policy and the implications of that policy around the world, you can see we have created a mess and that in so many ways we have made ourselves less safe than we could be if we had been smart, smart and tough as we went about it. And it is very difficult to listen to President Bush and Vice President Cheney talk about how if we only stick with their plan, we would begin to see a way out of here. After all, we all remember President Bush when he was on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln back in May 2003, with a big banner in front of him declaring ``mission accomplished.'' May 2003. Well, here we are today in Iraq and we just had a report come out a few days ago from the Pentagon saying things are worse than ever before. Clearly, we are a long way from mission accomplished. We had Vice President Cheney say more than a year ago that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final throes, and yet the report that came out just a few days ago from the Pentagon, a report I must say was required by Congress, it wasn't volunteered by the administration, Democrats in Congress pushed for a little small measure of accountability. Not what we need, but we got this report. And while the Vice President said the insurgency was in its last throes more than a year ago, the report says the Sunni-based insurgency remains ``potent and viable.'' And Secretary Rumsfeld, from day one has looked at Iraq through these rose-colored glasses. I remember when he sort of referenced an estimate by people at the Office of Management and Budget regarding the costs of the war as just a few million dollars. I mean, the figure he gave was peanuts compared to what we already have spent in Iraq. So I say to all those people who for all these years have said to us, trust us, we know what we are doing, just look at your record. Let us have that debate and let us have a real national conversation on these issues. Because the mantra ``stay the course'' is not a strategy. Do we really want to keep doing exactly what we have been doing when just a few days ago the report that came out of the Pentagon said things are worse than they have been in Iraq? Is that a strategy for success? Is that the plan for victory that the President announced last November at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland? I represent a congressional district in Maryland. The President went there and unveiled his plan for victory, he called it. Again, we have a report just a few days ago out of the Pentagon saying things are worse than ever. So I say we need a national conversation. We need to work together to find our way forward here.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It doesn't. And what is unfortunate is people on the one hand are saying let us have this national conversation and then finger-pointing at people who raise questions about what is happening in Iraq and elsewhere in our national security policy, when any sensible person looking at what is going on would have questions. So let us really get together and have a genuine national conversation about these very important issues. Now, you mentioned, and others have mentioned, that we are coming up very shortly to the tragic fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our country, and I do think it is important to take a moment to reflect again on where those attacks came from and the reaction of the international community, which you have outlined a little bit. Because we all know that those attacks were launched from Afghanistan. They were launched by al Qaeda. They were launched by Osama bin Laden as the head of al Qaeda, and they were launched from Afghanistan because the Taliban government gave al Qaeda sanctuary there in Afghanistan. When we were attacked on September 11, this country, and in fact the international community, responded. You already referred to the action taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But in fact also the United Nations unanimously passed a resolution saying they were with the United States in its fight against terror and they were with us in going after al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And in fact, when we went into Afghanistan, we were united as a country and the world was united behind us. You would think, given a lot of the recent talk and rhetoric out of the administration, until just a few days ago, that Osama bin Laden had kind of been forgotten. We weren't talking a lot about Osama bin Laden. But now, just the other day, as we approached September 11 and the anniversary of that tragic attack, the President again raised the words of Osama bin Laden and the very real threat that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and their virulent form of extremist Islamic ideology poses. But I think we should ask the question, given the fact that the President has now reminded us again of where those attacks came from, what are we doing in Afghanistan and how much progress have we really made? If you look at the situation now and you look at the southern part of Afghanistan, we have seen, by all accounts, including from the testimony of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the head of that is General Maples, that you have seen a resurgence in Taliban activities in southern Afghanistan. That is the hotbed of the resistance in Afghanistan. Yet, while we are seeing that resistance grow, we have actually seen a reduction in U.S. military forces in that area. That is not the way you address a real threat. Secondly, this administration disbanded the one unit, the one unit within the Central Intelligence Agency that was specifically dedicated to targeting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They got rid of it. We have also seen reports today that opium production in Afghanistan is now at a record high, the highest levels ever recorded in terms of opium production. And those are funds that are able to be used by al Qaeda to help arm themselves and help promote their ideology and help promote their efforts against the United States and others. At the same time, we learned today that Pakistan, Pakistan, has now entered into a deal with the pro-Taliban militia in the Waziristan portion of Pakistan, that rugged mountain area along the Pakistan- Afghan border, where the Taliban have been assembling and using as a launching pad for their attacks into Afghanistan. We have heard that Pakistan apparently is no longer going to sort of prosecute the war against al Qaeda. So if you look at the state of play today, and you ask yourself what have we done to eliminate the threat that attacked us on September 11, I would say the answer is pretty clear. We have a long way to go before we can hang up a banner of mission accomplished. And we need to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, what has happened is we have, as a result of the war in Iraq, diverted our resources and gotten ourselves bogged down in a very messy situation with a huge amount of sectarian violence, a budding civil war, civil war, whatever you want to call it. We heard from the Pentagon it is the worst situation they have seen. We have gotten bogged down there and we haven't finished the job against al Qaeda. Yet, at the same time, we have actually fueled the forces that support the extremists. We have added to their allies. We have provided a great recruiting tool for them. And the biggest beneficiary of all has been Iran. The biggest beneficiary of all has been Iran, which is right there next to Iraq. They fought a long war with Iraq. During most of the 1980s Iraq and Iran were engaged in a very bitter war. But now, with Iraq in chaos, Iran is extremely well positioned and is taking advantage of the situation. They are emboldened and they are trying to expand their influence in the region through Hezbollah and through other proxies. So I think as we have this national conversation, it is very important that the American people, not just looking at some of this rhetoric out there, but they really try to figure out what is going on. Because one of the biggest consequences of the administration's mistakes, and many of them are coming home to roost now, is that they refuse to listen. They refuse to listen to many generals regarding the best way to prosecute the war in Iraq. They refuse to listen to the experts at the Central Intelligence Agency about the possible consequences within Iraq of taking the lid off Pandora's box and unleashing the forces between the Sunnis, the Shiias, and the Kurds. They have all the answers, the administration. We have got all the answers. Who are you to question us? And you know what this Republican Congress said? You are right, you have got all the answers, so we are not going to ask you the tough questions. This was a blank-check Congress. No tough questions. No accountability. And the result has been very clear: when you ignore failure, or when you reward failure, you are going to get more failure. So what we are saying is, let us have a real national conversation. Let us have a Congress that will begin to ask the hard questions. Let's hold people accountable when they make mistakes. The finger pointing, you have got to scratch your head, as you pointed out. We have President Bush in the White House. We have Republicans controlling the Senate and the House. They really have no one to look around right now to blame. Yet they still are out there in the field trying to tell the American people that somehow it is the other guy's fault that we are in this mess now. It is time to hold them accountable.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We know what the consequence of that is. We know what the consequence is. When you don't hold people accountable for failure, you shouldn't be surprised when you get more of the same. But more of the same is not a good strategy in Iraq. More of the same is not a good strategy in terms of our national security. These are tough, difficult issues. Nobody has all the answers. So, it is very important that the Bush administration and the Republican leadership stop pretending that they have all the answers, because their view of the world has gotten us to where we are now, and we can be doing a lot better. I want to thank you and Mr. Scott for your very sensible leadership on these national security questions.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. This rule and the underlying bill are the kind of cynical ploy that unfortunately make Americans lose faith in their government. Americans know that Democrats have pushed for years to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25, a wage that has not been raised since 1996. Yet in the last 10 years, the Republican leadership has never allowed an up-or-down vote on that simple proposition, and tonight they still don't have the guts to do it. Here is what they say to the American people: in order for American families who work at the minimum wage and earn $10,000 a year to get a small wage increase, you have got to give the 7,500 American families with estates over $7 million a big tax break. Now, who are the losers tonight? Well, the big losers are everybody else. If you earn more than $10,000 a year, but you don't come from one of the 7,500 families with $7 million estates, you're a loser. And that is most of America. Why are you a loser? Because you are going to be paying billions of dollars on the interest by this additional borrowing. And here is the double standard: every year since 1996, this Republican leadership has had an up-or-down vote on congressional pay raises. They have never held their pay raise hostage to another piece of legislation. But when it comes to increasing the wages for working Americans, families earning $10,000 a year, oh, they are different from us Members of Congress. When it comes to giving them a pay raise, we are going to hold it hostage. We are going to hold it hostage to giving 7,500 American families with $7 million estates a tax break. That is unconscionable, it is shameful, and the American people understand what is going on. The game is up. Shame on the Republican leadership.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, the Reverend James A. Harris, on his 80th birthday, which he will celebrate on August 25, 2006. Reverend Harris has led a life of distinction and accomplishment. After growing up in Des Moines, Iowa, he served as a combat pilot with the famed Tuskegee Airmen during World War II. He went on to receive Bachelor of Fine Arts and Master of Fine Arts degrees at Drake University and later earned post-graduate degrees at Drake Divinity College, Oklahoma A&M University, and American University. Reverend Harris's numerous accomplishments and contributions to our community include his service as the first African American male President of the National Education Association (1974-75) and as a principal in the D.C. Public School system from 1975-88. He is a lifetime educator and scholar and a lifetime member of Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity. His career as a founder and pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland has enabled him to make a difference in countless lives. Named one of the ``100 Most Influential Black Americans'' by Ebony Magazine in 1975, Reverend Harris has been known for his humility and service to Montgomery County, Maryland for more than 25 years. His leadership has had a tremendous impact on countless individuals throughout our community. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to thank Reverend Harris for his many years of service to our community and to our nation. I extend my heartiest congratulations to him on the occasion of his 80th birthday, and I hope his celebrations this year and in the years to come are filled with the love and happiness of his family and friends.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4157, the Information Technology Promotion Act of 2005. It is unfortunate that the House Republican leadership refused to allow this Congress the opportunity to strengthen this bill and protect the privacy of patients. Like many of my colleagues, I support moving our health care system into the ``information age''--it holds the promise of saving lives, saving money, and saving time. However, I am concerned that H.R. 4157 does not adequately protect the privacy of patients. In light of millions of electronic data records being exposed due to recent high- profile security breaches, it is troubling that this legislation does not adequately address this critical issue. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow us the opportunity to vote on an alternative bill that was based on the bipartisan Senate health information technology legislation (S. 1418)-- which unanimously passed that chamber. This alternative proposal included safeguards for Americans to protect their personal medical records from identity thieves. Mr. Chairman, health information technology should not be a partisan issue. Congress should not miss the opportunity to transition our health care into the 21st century, but it must be done in a manner that will protect the sensitive health information of millions of Americans. I am hopeful that the final version of the legislation will be fashioned in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion by the House-Senate Conference.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution congratulating the National Library of Medicine on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The National Library of Medicine, which is located on the National Institutes of Health campus and is in my Congressional district, was created in 1956 by the National Library of Medicine Act. Before 1956, the National Library of Medicine was known as the Armed Forces Medical Library. The National Library of Medicine provides invaluable tools for medical librarians such as the Medical Librarian Association, health consumers, and health professionals to support information access and high-quality health care. With its vast collections in all areas of biomedicine and health care, the National Library of Medicine is the world's largest medical library with more than 8 million items. Through its extramural grant programs, outreach programs, health information technology research programs, and databases such as Medline/PubMed Central and ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Library of Medicine works to provide the highest quality, most relevant, and timely health information for health professionals and health consumers. Mr. Speaker, I salute the National Library of Medicine on its 50th anniversary and commend it for its leadership in the health sciences information field.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to congratulate Montgomery County, Maryland, on being recognized for the third straight year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Green Power Partnership as one of the Nation's top ten local government green power purchasers. For many years, Montgomery County has set a precedent for the consumption of renewable energy sources. Its buying group, which is now at the forefront of an innovative and unique wind energy purchase, was noted by the EPA as one of the top 25 largest national purchasers of green power. Its pioneering purchases have promoted a cleaner and more environmentally-safe approach to energy consumption in our community. Furthermore, this purchase also represents the Nation's first effort on the part of a local government to include renewable energy in the State's plan to implement air quality improvements under the federal Clean Air Act. Montgomery County has long been a leader in the field of clean energy. In 2004, under Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan's leadership, the County began purchasing five percent of its energy from wind. In April 2006, County Executive Duncan and the County Council committed to increasing the County's renewable energy purchase to 20 percent of its total electricity use over the next 5 years. Significantly, Montgomery County has been actively encouraging residents to join these efforts by purchasing clean energy for their homes, businesses, and community organizations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting Montgomery County, Maryland, for its groundbreaking commitment to increasing the overall consumption of renewable energy sources now and in the years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Col. Cindy Creamer, a thirty-year veteran of the City of Takoma Park Police Department, on the occasion of her retirement. As an officer and police chief, Col. Creamer has worked tirelessly over the past three decades to ensure the safety and security of Takoma Park residents, and her dedication to this vital task deserves our sincere gratitude and appreciation. Sworn in as a police officer on her 21st birthday, Chief Creamer served in every division of the Takoma Park Police Department. She began her career as a Communications Dispatcher in 1976, then went on to serve in and eventually command both the patrol and criminal investigation divisions. Chief Creamer was selected as Officer of the Year in 1980 while serving as a patrol officer, and she received the honor again in 1990 for her criminal investigating skills. As the first female sergeant and lieutenant in the agency, she received numerous other honors, including Supervisor of the Year. Chief Creamer has served the residents of the City of Takoma Park and Montgomery County with dedication and commitment. She has made a difference in the quality of life throughout our county. Although she is retiring from active duty on the Takoma Park police force, I am delighted that Chief Creamer will continue to serve our community as deputy chief for patrol at the WSSC Police Department. I am confident that her many years of active experience will ensure her success in this role. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent Chief Cindy Creamer in the U.S. Congress and to extend my congratulations and thanks to her for her service to our community.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 that will revamp this country's sex offenders registration system. This bill is named in honor of Adam Walsh, the son of John and Reve Walsh, who was abducted 25 years ago. Through the strength and perseverance of John and Reve, they turned the gut wrenching tragedy of the abduction and killing of their son Adam into a lifelong crusade to protect the children of others. The bill before us today is another weapon in this country's arsenal to protect our children from what seems to be an epidemic of abduction and exploitation. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) estimates that today there are more that 563,000 sex offenders that are ``supposed'' to be registered in this country. Unfortunately, approximately 100,000 of these offenders are currently unaccounted for and therefore, are under the watchful eye of no one. H.R. 4472 will create a National registry that will provide enhanced information on a uniform basis thereby replacing a patchwork of individual systems administered and maintained by each State. Through this bill, sex offenders will have the same requirements to register throughout the country. Sex offenders will be required to register before they are released from prison to insure that they don't slip through the cracks. Moreover, this bill will impose stiff penalties for failing to register by imposing a felony. While we can never do enough to protect our children, this bill does tighten the weave of the safety net through which many predators have slipped. A uniform national registry of sexual predators will assist law enforcement, parents, and concerned citizens in their vigilance and awareness of who is lurking on our neighborhood waiting to rob our children of their innocence and, all too often, of their lives. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the bipartisan group of legislators who steered this bill successfully through Conference, the Walshes, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for making this national registry a reality.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend The Children's Inn at the National Institutes of Health, an extraordinary organization in my congressional district, which has worked for many years to provide a warm, supportive home environment for seriously ill children and families seeking cutting-edge treatment at the NIH. Since it opened in June 1990, The Children's Inn has provided free lodgings to over 6,000 children and their families. The true extent of its services, however, goes far beyond the mere provision of living accommodations. By bringing seriously ill children and their families together in a warm, lively community that provides camaraderie and understanding, The Children's Inn has created invaluable support networks and friendships for children who face daily and often overwhelming challenges. As we begin National Hospitality House Week, I am pleased to recognize and pay tribute to The Children's Inn and its staff and volunteers for their selfless commitment to some of the youngest and most fragile members of our community. Their generosity of spirit is inspiring and, through their actions, they serve as role models to so many others. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent this special place--The Children's Inn at the National Institutes of Health--and to honor it today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 921 condemning recent attacks against Israel. The attacks and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah have precipitated a crisis in the region. Like any sovereign power, Israel has the right and responsibility to defend herself against unprovoked attacks. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantling of all independent militias in Lebanon. That resolution has never been enforced. Consequently, the Hezbollah militia has been able to operate freely in Lebanon, especially in the southern area bordering Israel, and has amassed a large arsenal of weapons, including an estimated 13,000 rockets. During the past year, Hezbollah has launched at least four separate rocket attacks into Israel. The latest round of rockets have fallen indiscriminately on civilians in Haifa and other population centers. Hezbollah's terrorist operations not only pose a threat to Israel, but they also threaten the security of Lebanon. The majority of people in Lebanon strongly resent Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon into a conflict with Israel. They understand that Israel did not initiate these hostilities and has a right to defend herself. Israel also has a right to destroy the military and terrorist apparatus employed by Hezbollah in its attacks on Israel. Israel must make it absolutely clear that its efforts are focused on that objective. Every effort must be made to prevent civilian casualties. Actions perceived by the people of Lebanon to unnecessarily target civilian infrastructure will have the unintentional consequence of transforming Lebanese anger at Hezbollah into anger at Israel. The United States and Israel must not unwittingly hand Hezbollah a propaganda victory and strengthen the hands of the extremists in the region. Unfortunately, recent American actions in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, especially the war in Iraq, have had the unintentional but very foreseeable consequence of inflaming anti-Western sentiment and strengthening the position of the most radical Islamic forces. Among the biggest beneficiaries of the situation in Iraq has been neighboring Iran. Iran has exploited the chaos and instability in Iraq to advance its own radical agenda and expand its influence in the region. It has also further strengthened its leverage and reach in the region through its continued support of Hezbollah. The United States must do more to rally the international community to pressure Syria and Iran to end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas. However, our leverage has been considerably weakened by the situation in Iraq and the perception that the United States is bogged down there. In a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, a few weeks before invading Iraq, President Bush declared that going to war in Iraq would promote democracy and stability in the Middle East, reduce the influence of the hardliners and help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Specifically, the President said, ``Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy nation that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers and other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terrorists would not be tolerated.'' Unfortunately, but predictably, we have seen the opposite result in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. The prospects of achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement are far more remote today than they were when we invaded Iraq. While we engaged militarily in Iraq, this Administration disengaged from any serious effort at re- establishing an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This Administration must confront the fact that its failed policies in Iraq and the region are further destabilizing and inflaming an already volatile region. We must lead not just by the might of our military, but by the power of our example. It is time to begin rebuilding our credibility around the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Schiff from California, again, for his leadership. And I think we have covered a lot of territory in this hour. I think we will have a continuing conversation here in the Congress, and I am sure we will have a continuing conversation throughout the country about this very important issue. And, again, it goes to the question about whether we take our words seriously in terms of moving the policy of this country forward. And you can't have a situation where you have the President say this is a national priority, on the one hand, and then have a budget that comes down the next day that sends a very, very different message because, if you do that, number one, you lose credibility with the American people; and, number two, you obviously can't achieve your objective if you don't harness some of our national resources to this very important, very important effort. So I want to thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue. And I hope that in the days ahead, this Congress will move from a position of rhetoric on these issues to actually doing something meaningful and taking this country in a new direction when it comes to energy policy, which, as we have discussed tonight, is such an important component of our national security policy as well. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Schiff from California, for his leadership in bringing us together to discuss these very important national security issues. We are very pleased to be joined today by Congresswoman Kaptur, as well, who is very well versed in the issue of energy security and energy policy. It is wonderful to have her with us on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I think America understands that energy security is a very important part of our national security. But if we are going to address energy security in a meaningful way going forward, we need to do it in a new manner. We cannot just be doing the same old thing. Now, I think many of us were pleased back in January when the President delivered his State of the Union address, and from the podium right behind Mr. Schiff, he said to the Congress assembled and to the American people that the United States was addicted to oil. In fact, his exact words were: The United States is addicted to oil which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. I am pleased that the President finally acknowledged that. That was kind of the headline in the newspapers the next day. The confusing thing, I thought, was that most of America already knew that we were overly reliant on oil, especially on foreign oil. But it was news that this administration had begun to at least acknowledge that problem. The question is, having acknowledged the problem, whether we are serious as a Nation about doing something about it. Unfortunately, if you look at the record to date from the Bush administration, despite the rhetoric he gave at the time he addressed the United States Congress, we have not seen the follow-through in terms of a new plan. And we need a new direction in energy policy. For example, that night he talked about the fact that we need to do more in the area of renewable energy, which we do; as you, Mr. Schiff, have said, that many of us have been pushing for for many, many years. But I think we all remember that it was not long after the President gave his State of the Union address that he flew off to the National Renewable Energy Lab out in Colorado, part of NOAA, and discovered that in fact the budget that he was submitting the day after the State of the Union address actually cut about 40 employees who were working on renewable energy at that lab. And so the difference is really the one between actually doing something about an issue or just talking about an issue. Because when you submit a budget the day after your State of the Union address, in which you say that the country is addicted to oil, and we have got to do something about it, and you submit a budget that cuts individuals' pay at one of the greatest national labs on that issue, in fact, the one that the President chose for his photo op on this issue, you know there is some kind of miscommunication between the guys who write the speeches and the guys that actually are putting the budget together which reflect the priorities of our Nation. Clearly, the priority in that budget wasn't to follow through in a new direction on energy policy. In fact, unfortunately, what we have seen is the same old, same old. We have an energy policy bill that some people say will help wean us off our dependence on oil, but a major feature of that bill is to provide more taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Now, I have got to believe that the American people are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with this picture? I just went to fill up my car with gasoline. We have record prices at the pump. The oil and gas industry is making record profits, and yet you, the United States Congress, under this Republican leadership, you are taking some more of my taxpayer money and saying to the oil and gas industry, gee, even though you are making record profits and gas prices are through the roof, we are going to give you some of our constituents' taxpayer money as additional incentive for you to go out and explore and drill for oil and gas. What happened to the free market? What happened to the notion that here we want to make sure that the market works? In fact, we are taking money from our taxpayers to subsidize an industry that needs absolutely no subsidy. They are making record profits. In fact, the President announced that we have to break that addiction. If you want to break an addiction, the first thing you need to do is acknowledge you got a problem. Then you got to do something about it. Providing a greater subsidy or additional subsidies to the oil and gas industry, when you have acknowledged, as the President said, that we are addicted to oil, does exactly the opposite.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, that is exactly right. Let us say you had an alcoholic. The last thing you want to do to help that person kick the habit is to provide a subsidy, for example, to the alcohol industry to make more alcohol at different prices. So we have got a real contradiction here between what we now acknowledge should be our national priority, a national priority, and what we are actually doing about it. That is why I think it is very important that we are here today to talk about a new direction, because I do believe that if we want to really help break that addiction and reduce our reliance on oil, we need a large national effort. That is why many of us have joined together to introduce the new Apollo Energy Act, which says we need to harness the great potential of this Nation, the grant entrepreneurial spirit, and make sure that we commit ourselves to this real national effort, in addition to the fact that we need to encourage, not just more renewable energy, but in the immediate short-term we can also encourage greater energy efficiency. We waste an awful lot of energy as a Nation through inefficient use of energy. So the Federal Government has tried and gave us a push to try to encourage States and local jurisdictions, the American people, to find ways to improve energy efficiency. But if you look at the President's budget with respect to energy efficiency efforts, you see dramatic reductions in the budget that he submitted for that purpose. In fact, Diane Shea, who is the executive director of the National Association of State Energy Officials, has said that the assistance that the States received from the Department of Energy is not going to be available this year as it was in the past. This year, the year after the President stood at this podium right here in this Chamber and said this is a national problem, we have got a national addiction, we have got to do something about it. Yet he reduced the efforts that we had put in place and were trying to develop to try to help people with energy efficiency, because we know that if we can use energy more efficiently, obviously, then we need less to produce the same output and the same quality of life. So if you look at all of these different areas, you just find a growing gap between what the Bush administration says it wants to do and what it is actually doing. It is a credibility gap that is growing. I think the American people recognize that fact, and they are looking for an alternative that is real. That is why we have developed what we call a real security plan, not a fake one, not one where you say one thing and do another, but a real plan, which really makes the national commitment to this effort in many, many different areas. The new Apollo Energy Project is part of that. A project to provide greater efforts in the area of ethanol is part of that. A whole series of concrete steps that are in a proposal that is put together through a consensus by many experts is part of that. We need to act on that proposal, and we need to start acting today if we really want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve our national security situation, and improve our environmental situation and address the issue of global climate change, which we necessarily need to address as well. I would be happy to yield to our colleague, Ms. Marcy Kaptur, and thank her for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the gentleman would yield, I understand your confusion, and I share that. I think it has been so shortsighted that we as a Nation didn't take the steps that we needed to take many years ago in this regard in terms of updating in a significant way the CAFE standard, the corporate average fuel economy standards in this country. When gas prices started going up over the last many months, all of a sudden you saw people running around with their heads cut off, trying to think of quick-fix solutions. You had the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, he floated this idea of a $100 rebate to every American, as if that was somehow going to solve the problem. Quick fixes are not going to solve the problem. We need serious solutions. One of the things that should have been done years and years ago was updating the CAFE standardS. It is interesting to hear Members of Congress who have been here for a long time, I listened to Senator Lott and others on the other side talking about this. They said, Gee, you know, if we had known what we were going to see today in terms of gas prices, we would have supported an increase in the CAFE standards back then. Well, you know, we don't all have crystal balls, but we have to exercise our best judgment. And the fact of the matter is that is a long overdue measure. And it is not a quick fix because it takes time for the fleet of cars to turn over. You can't just change the corporate average fuel economy standards today and, presto, have a result. It requires some forward thinking. The fact that we didn't do it before was a big mistake, and I think people should hold people accountable for their mistakes. On the other hand, it is better late than never. We need to get moving on that, and we need to get moving on the whole menu of other options that we have been discussing today. There is no silver bullet to this. You need an array of options. You need a number of efforts going on at the same time. But in order to get all of those things going, you need one essential ingredient, and that is some leadership and a commitment to this issue and a commitment to have a new direction and not just rely on the failed policies of the past that continue to get us into the mess we are in.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think despite the fact there are 3,000 miles between the area you represent and the area I represent, that is certainly one of the things that brings our constituents together. I think what they are all looking for, regardless of where they live in this great country of ours, is some real leadership on this very important issue. This House just a few weeks ago had another opportunity to send a statement on the fact that we wanted a forward-looking energy plan with a new direction or whether we just wanted to go the same old, same old. Our colleague, Congressman Markey of Massachusetts, offered an amendment. It said let us put an end to another subsidy to provide for deepwater drilling for oil and gas. In other words, and I just want to make this clear, in other words, taking funds from our constituents and providing it to the oil and gas companies effectively in the form of a subsidy so that they can drill for oil and gas. Now, even this administration said they were against this particular subsidy, but not the leadership in this House, not the Republican leadership in this House. It went right out of this House because, unfortunately, the Republican leadership is still in the old frame of mind that we can just keep doing what we used to be doing rather than moving in a very new direction. I would like to pick up briefly on our point that our colleague here, Ms. Kaptur, made with respect to the issue of the Federal Government leading by example. It is hard for all of us to ask people around this country to do things in the area of energy efficiency when the Federal Government itself has been such a deadbeat on this. The Federal Government, after all, is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States and yet, again, after the President gave his State of the Union address, he submitted the fiscal year 2007 budget, and that was the lowest request ever for Federal Government energy efficiency efforts. In fact, that was lower, despite the fact in 2004 the Federal Government consumed more energy than at any other time in the last 10 years. So, again, I get back to the point, you got to say what you mean and you got to follow through. Here was another example. This is the day of the State of the Union address, the budget came down, and yet the budget came down, the President, head of the executive branch, submitted a budget that reduced funds for energy efficiency programs in the Federal Government. That is not leading by example. Part of our new directions program is we say we will ensure that the Federal Government will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, the gentleman is right, and I think the statistics on this are clear, that even if you took all the oil you could possibly drill out of Alaska, with all the costs and the environmental damage, it would deal with only a very short period of 1 year, less than 1 year, a couple weeks to months in terms of our total energy use. So if you are trying to break an addiction, you do not keep feeding that addiction. What you need to do is have a different approach in general. As Ms. Kaptur has said, it is not just one different thing, it is many different technologies and different ideas that you need to work on. But what you don't do if you want to kick a habit is keep encouraging that habit to remain. And yet that is what we have been using so much of our natural resources to do. We should not be using taxpayer money to do the oil and gas subsidies. Rather, we should be using our efforts to encourage these other ideas that are in our national interest. The President has said we have a problem. That is not the issue, apparently. But the issue is what are we doing about it. That is why I think this discussion is important. I really do believe it is a terrible thing when so many of the others around the world are ahead of us in so many areas where we should be leading the way. We have a great entrepreneurial spirit. We have the resources and talents to do this. There is no reason why other countries should be beating us in the area of renewable energy development and energy efficiency technologies. And yet they are. I think that is because of a lack of national leadership. Other countries have made this a priority. In this country we have made it a priority for sound bites, but we have not made it a priority for policy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views regarding the Oman Free Trade Agreement. I have supported certain trade agreements in the past because I believe they can be an important step toward opening markets for U.S. businesses. I also believe that the economic interdependence that flows from trade agreements can help create a more cooperative and peaceful world by solidifying ties between nations. That is why I supported agreements with Australia, Chile, Morocco, Bahrain and Singapore. This outlook informs my approach to trade agreements and as I carefully considered the provisions of the Oman Free Trade agreement, I recognized its potential for opening Oman's market to U.S. agriculture, manufacturing and the services industry. But a trade agreement is about more than trade; it is also about the fair treatment of workers and other considerations. With respect to worker's rights, the Oman FTA is seriously flawed. Like CAFTA, the Oman FTA only requires the Omani Government to enforce its own labor laws. And when violations occur, the Omani Government is only required to pay a financial penalty to itself. This provision is a source of concern to me in light of reports by the international labor community that Oman's labor laws fall far short of meeting the International Labor Organization's core labor standards and do not provide Omani workers with the fundamental protections needed to prevent workplace exploitation. Oman has a massive guest worker population, comprising over 75 percent of Oman's total work force. According to reports, in Oman, guest workers are prevented from exercising their international labor rights and have reportedly been jailed for complaining about the working conditions and violation of labor rights. My concerns about the Oman FTA were reinforced by news reports coming out of Jordan about violations of Jordanian workers rights. Before these incidents, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was considered the gold standard for labor provisions in trade agreements. Jordan's labor laws are strong and it has long experience administrating them. That is why, when I read the May 3, 2006, New York Times article describing the abusive conditions in Jordan's apparel industry, I also grew concerned about the lack of protections for workers in Oman. Reports are emerging from Jordan of an environment where workers put in 20-hour days with little or no pay and where physical abuse is rampant. If workers rights are not enforced in Jordan, there is little hope that workers in Oman--where independent unions are outlawed--will have their rights protected. Trade agreements must at least hold open the reasonable prospect that workers will be treated fairly. This agreement fails that test.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. I am extremely disappointed that the President exercised his first veto on a piece of bipartisan legislation that will provide countless number of Americans hope of finding cures for many life-threatening diseases. This Congress has passed many pieces of irresponsible legislation that benefit narrow special interests at the expense of the public good. The President did not veto any of those bills. Now the Congress has finally passed a bipartisan bill that will help find cures to diseases that strike virtually every American family. Yet the President has chosen to veto this landmark bill. In doing so, the President is playing to the extreme right of his own political party. Shame on the President for putting politics over the health of the American people. We should allow the expansion of federally supported research of human embryonic stem cell lines. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 would provide federal funding for a wider range of stem cell research while establishing ethical guidelines. The bill also provides that embryos that are otherwise likely to be discarded can be used to develop treatments for debilitating diseases and life-saving cures. I 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. While it is too late for those who have passed from these terrible diseases, it still not too late for the millions of other Americans hoping that the Congress will override the President's veto and support federally funded research of this potentially life-saving resource. For these patients and their families, stem cell research is the last hope for a cure. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects every family in America. I strongly urge my House colleagues to vote to override the President's veto on this bipartisan legislation.