Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The legislation before us today is nothing more than an attempt by the Republican leadership to exploit a wedge issue that panders to their political base and diverts attention from their abysmal record of non-accomplishment and rubberstamping the incompetence of the Bush Administration. As we get closer to the end of this Congress, we should be addressing the urgent needs of the American people--the war in Iraq, affordable health care, a sensible energy policy, quality education for our children, retirement security, and a sound and fair fiscal policy. Whatever one's view is on same sex marriage, amending the Constitution is not the place to address this issue. The laws governing marriage fall under the domain of the states and that is where this issue should be addressed. Amendments to the Constitution have historically expanded, not diminished, the rights and liberties of the American people. We should not use the Constitution as a political tool to divide us. The American people will see through the motivations behind this amendment--to distract the American people from the failed record of the Republican leadership in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to work to unite the American people, address the real issues facing our Nation, and reject this amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield? The sad part about so much of this is that so much of it was foreseeable, if only the President and the White House had listened to people who knew what they were talking about in this very important foreign policy area. I quoted earlier this evening the words of the President in a speech that he gave at the American Enterprise Institute on the eve of going to war in Iraq, when he talked about the fact that our invasion of Iraq would create a new era of stability in the region. It would help create a domino effect of creating new democratic movements in the region. It was sort of the big bang of creation of democratic governments in the region. That was what the President said. But the fact of the matter is at the same time the President gave that speech, the experts were telling him the opposite, and yet they were ignored because their advice did not fit the decision that President and some of his advisers had made. Just a month ago, Paul Pillar, who was the head of the Bureau of Near East and South Asia at the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the invasion, testified; and here is what he told the Congress just recently. He told the Congress that what is happening was, in fact, predicted in the national intelligence estimate of that time. Here is what he said. And on the situation, this is his testimony about a month ago. And on the situation that would be faced in post-Saddam Iraq, the Intelligence Community produced, on its own initiative, its assessment of the likely challenges there. It presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy, and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition. It forecasted in a deeply divided Iraqi society there was a significant chance that sectarian and ethnic groups would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it. It also assessed that the war and occupation would boost political Islam, increase sympathy for terrorist objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East. This is the assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency before we went to war in Iraq. The people who knew the region, the people who understood the consequences of an invasion were ignored by this White House. So we have to ask ourselves, where is the accountability in this system? From day one in this administration, the people who got it wrong have been rewarded, and the people who got it right have been ignored. And yet what this administration says to us is ``Trust us.'' Just stay the course. More of the same. Well, we have had years of failed policy. No one has been held accountable. What do we expect in the years ahead and the days ahead and the months ahead from an administration that refuses to hold those who get it wrong accountable and ignores all those who get it right?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, I think that is absolutely right. You see this whole shift, overnight, in world opinion, again from the world being on our side and willing to fight alongside us in the war on terror that had been precipitated by the attacks of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That was one day. After the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based on totally false premises, you saw the world turn against us. Some people here ask, Why does it matter whether people around the world like us or support our policies? Why does it matter if people in the Middle East have a positive view of the United States? Why does it matter if the Islamic world has a positive view of the United States? Well, here is the problem. If you don't have the support of those countries, it is very difficult to get their cooperation in the war on terror. It is very difficult for them to say we are going to help you in the United States in this battle on terror. That is one problem. The other problem is, it is a total contradiction between our efforts to promote democracy in the region, on the one hand, and to say we don't care what the people in those countries think, on the other hand. Because if we want to promote democracy, which means that we want leaders in the region to be elected by the people, then we better make sure that the people who are electing them support our goals and support our objectives. Because if the people who are electing the leaders in Middle East countries hate the United States and want to bring harm to the United States, it is very difficult for someone running for office there to say they support our efforts and support our policy. You saw the election in the Palestinian areas of Hamas and the extremists as opposed to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority had said, we want to work with the United States, and we want to work with Israel toward a peace process. But the people, when they had a choice, for all sorts of reasons chose the more extremist Hamas. So the perceptions of the United States and our policies overseas have a direct bearing on our own security here at home. You cannot say you want to promote democracy in the Middle East, on the one hand, and say you don't care if they hate America, on the other hand. If they hate America, they are going to elect leaders who reflect the will of the people, and that is bad for the United States, and yet our actions have fueled that kind of antagonism and hatred and actually made us less, not more, secure.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue of national security, and thank my colleagues Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Bishop of New York for all of their leadership. I would just like to pick up where Mr. Delahunt and others left off with respect to the forgotten war in Afghanistan. I do think it is important, when we look at the situation in the world today, and we look at the violence erupting in the Middle East, we do remember what happened here in the United States back on September 11, 2001, and the origins of that attack. As he reminds us, the attack on the United States, September 11, 2001, came from al Qaeda, al Qaeda that was sheltered by the Taliban government in Afghanistan; and that the world was with us when we responded, fully and forcefully, to those attacks of September, 2001. In fact, the United Nations unanimously passed a resolution supporting us, our NATO allies universally supported us. In fact, they enacted a charter, part of a NATO charter saying an attack on one was an attack on all. Yet today we are seeing in Afghanistan there has been a resurgence of Taliban activity, and at a very time when we are facing that resurgence, the United States is not providing a commitment that we need to make sure that we succeed against those who began and perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. Back then, instead of focusing on that battle against those who attacked us, we did divert our resources and our energy in Iraq. The President gave a number of reasons back then for the action we were taking. We remember well the twin pillars of the argument. He said, well, they have got weapons of mass destruction. Many of us said, let's let the U.N. inspectors have a little more time to see whether that is true or not true. The President said, no more time, we are going in. He also said there was collaboration between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission and many others have proven that that is not true either. But it is important to remember that the President also advanced some other reasons for going to war in Iraq. One of the arguments he made was by the United States going to Iraq. By invading Iraq, we would help build stability in the Middle East, that we would promote democracy in the Middle East, that we would reduce the influence of the hardliners in the area and increase the influence of the moderates. In fact, just a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, in a speech before the American Enterprise Institute, here is what the President had to say. I think it is important to reflect on his words then as we look now at the terrible violence erupting in the Middle East. He said then, and this was one of the rationales he gave us for going to war in Iraq, success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress for a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron 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 terror will not be tolerated. That was a word of his to Iran and others. Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders. Well, in fact, what has happened in the Middle East, since the invasion of Iraq is the opposite of what the President has said. We know now that when we invaded Iraq, we took the lid off Pandora's box, that we set in motion longstanding grievances within different groups within Iraq, the Sunnis, and Shiias and the Kurds, and that outsiders exploited the mess that was created in Iraq, and al Qaeda, that had never operated out of Iraq, did become active in Iraq. In fact, what happened was our invasion of Iraq strengthened the hands of extremist groups throughout the region. It made it more difficult for the more moderate Arab governments to support the United States, because people in their countries saw that the United States had invaded Iraq, and they said there was no reason for this war of choice against Iraq. The big winner, the big winner, of course, as Mr. Delahunt pointed out, has been Iran. Iran has very successfully exploited the chaos and the vacuum that has been created in Iraq as a result of the mess there. They have gone into Iraq. They have many agents there, and they, as we know, are also exploiting the feelings of others throughout the region, especially Hezbollah. They have provided missiles to Hezbollah, missiles that are now being used to rain down on northern Israel. Iran, Iran, as a result, has become much more of a power in the region. Iran, one of the other countries the President named as the axis of evil, has, in fact, been strengthened by the President's decision to go to war in Iraq. You just need to read the comments of other Arab leaders in the region, from some of the more moderate Arab countries who say today, they ask, this is quoted in The New York Times, Who is benefiting, asked a senior official of one of the Arab countries, critical of Hezbollah. Definitely not the Arabs or the peace process, but definitely the Iranians are benefiting Arab leaders have long been concerned about Iran, and the great irony of our invasion of Iraq is it has greatly strengthened the hand of Iran and greatly strengthened the hands of the extremists in the region who have been fueled by the antagonism that is unleashed toward the United States and the West by our actions there.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Davis, the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, for his leadership on this very important national issue. As my colleague Ms. Norton pointed out, the Federal Government was there at the creation of the Washington Metro system, and has a huge investment already in the Washington Metro system. This legislation is designed to help protect the Federal investment, the investment taxpayers have already made in that national system. I don't know why anybody would not want to provide the accountability measures to ensure that this investment is protected going forward. We have, as we know, a system that the Federal Government relies upon to bring thousands of employees to work every day: workers who work in our national security agencies, workers who work at the Department of Health and Human Services, and all the other Federal agencies that help provide services to the American people every day. This system is also a critical link in any evacuation plan of the Nation's Capital. Imagine everyone trying to get out of this city without using the Metro system to take thousands of people out. You would have gridlock. You wouldn't be able to do it. Now, Mr. Davis has already pointed out this House is already on record just a few weeks ago in providing the Federal investment. We have done that. The only question now is whether we are going to provide the accountability piece, whether we are going to say to the Washington Metro system, you are going to be held accountable for that Federal investment in order to protect the Federal taxpayers. That is what it is all about. I think it is worth underscoring the four major accountability provisions. Number one, we are asking the local jurisdictions that contribute to the system to make sure that they do it. Why would we, the Federal Government, want to be at the whim, on a year-to-year basis, of whether local jurisdictions are going to be able to provide their part of this Federal-local partnership? That doesn't make any sense from the point of view of the Federal Government. Second, it requires the establishment of the inspector general. Don't we want somebody there to make sure we protect that investment, an independent auditor who can look after that Federal taxpayer investment? Third, we add four new members to WMATA's board. Right now, none of the board members are accountable to the Federal Government. Don't we want board members who are accountable to the Federal taxpayer, as well as board members who are accountable to the other contributing jurisdictions? Fourth, it requires that Metro take on some other issues that have festered over a period of time and which make it more difficult to fulfill its Federal mandate and its responsibilities to the Federal Government. Now, I want to commend the Metro system for doing what they have done with the budget they have got. But there is no doubt in order to keep the system viable going forward, the Federal Government needs to maintain its historic contribution and the local partners need to continue to make theirs. The only question with this bill is whether we are going to be asking WMATA to make sure it has accountability provisions in place to protect that very important Federal investment. I would say, why wouldn't we want to protect the taxpayers who have made an investment in this very important national transportation infrastructure right from the beginning?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. Watt, for yielding. I urge my colleagues to support the renewal of the historic Voting Rights Act today and vote for the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee without amendment. I am very proud of the work we did on that committee on a bipartisan basis and want to commend the bipartisan leadership of the full committee, the subcommittee, and Mr. Watt for his leadership. On March 15, 1965, after years of struggle culminating in Bloody Sunday, where our colleague John Lewis so bravely marched, President Lyndon Johnson came to this very place and, from the podium behind me, called upon the Congress and the Nation and said to us all we shall overcome; we as a Nation shall overcome years of discrimination and efforts to throw obstacles in the way of African Americans and other minorities from exercising their constitutional right to vote and exercising their right to fully participate in this great democracy of ours. We have come a long way as a Nation, but we have a long way to go to really overcome, as President Johnson called upon us to do. The evidence before the Judiciary Committee was absolutely clear that serious problems in discrimination remain. The testimony made it clear that section 5 preclearance has been used more between 1982 and 2005 than between the years 1965 and 1982. The evidence showed that since 1982 the Department of Justice has objected to more than 700 discriminatory voting changes that have been enacted by the covered jurisdictions. The evidence showed that the covered jurisdictions withdrew an additional 200 proposed changes from section 5 review and an additional 600 voting changes were revised to ensure nondiscriminatory impact. Anyone who says that we do not continue to need the Voting Rights Act is dead wrong. In addition, there were many other findings. We have a long way to go, Mr. Chairman, to achieve a more perfect Union. I urge my colleagues to adopt the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, without amendment. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Larson, for his leadership on this. And, Mr. Delahunt, thank you. Let me just begin where you left off, Mr. Delahunt, with Afghanistan, because I think it is very important that we go back to that terrible day of September 11, 2001, and remember where the attack came from. It came from Afghanistan, organized by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and they were given sanctuary by the Taliban. And the world was with us when we decided to respond to the terrible attacks. The United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to support our effort. NATO, for the first time in the history of the alliance, invoked the provisions of the article that said an attack against one is an attack on all. And so it seems to me that the number one priority here should be to finish the business and complete the mission. We remember that fateful picture of President Bush on the aircraft carrier back in May, 2003, talking about ``Mission Accomplished'' with the great banner. Well, the mission is not accomplished. The people responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, are still somewhere along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that is why I think many of us were very surprised just last week to learn that the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, has closed down, closed down, the unit that was first established many years ago with the specific purpose of tracking down and hunting down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And let me just say this: I know a lot of us had to be scratching our heads when we saw that, because the American people know well that we have not completed that mission, and I think it is important that they know that the individual who first started that unit, a former member of the CIA, Michael Scheuer, was also very surprised and perplexed. He is the one that was the head of what was called Alec Station, this unit dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden. And he is now retired from the CIA, but here is what he said, It reflected a view within the agency, the CIA, that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat that he once was. And Mr. Scheuer said, and I think most of us would agree, that that view was mistaken, that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda remain a very virulent threat. Here is what Mr. Scheuer had to say: ``This will clearly denigrate our operations against al Qaeda. These days at the agency, bin Laden and al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals.'' First among equals. These are the individuals, this is the organization that was responsible for the attacks on this country of September 11. They have disbanded the unit dedicated to tracking him down, and they have gotten themselves bogged down in a mess in Iraq. We have not finished the job in Afghanistan. We need to finish the job. We are sending the absolutely wrong signal, in my view, by reducing the number of forces committed to the southern part of Afghanistan, whereas Mr. Delahunt pointed out we have seen a great resurgence in activity of the Taliban along that southern area. That is the very area where the head of the Taliban, who is still also at large, made his base. So I think that it is important that we remember why we are engaged in this great national effort and the fact we have not accomplished our mission, and in fact, at the agency, they are disbanding one of the units that was established for that express purpose.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think Mr. Rubin is right on point on that very important issue, and I do think it is important to listen to what many of the experts in this area say. The President claims that he keeps listening to the experts with respect to the decision made in Iraq and elsewhere. The interesting thing is many generals and other experts have said that Rumsfeld and others, the Secretary of Defense, in fact, ignored their advice. But if you just go back to last March when the President took a visit to south Asia, he made a couple of stops. He stopped in Afghanistan, he stopped in India, he stopped in Pakistan. One of the great ironies is that the very day he made a stop over in Afghanistan, General Maples, who is the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was testifying before the United States Congress. In fact he was testifying over in front of the Senate and talking about the danger of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, the President at that time was probably as close as he will ever get to Osama bin Laden. He was in Kabul, Afghanistan, going over to India and Pakistan; and yet, at the same time he has been talking about reducing in effect our commitment to Afghanistan in terms of our military presence, and this country has not yet made its financial commitments as well, but that very day General Maples was here testifying that, in fact, the continued presence of the active Taliban and al Qaeda resistance in Afghanistan was heating up and that the Taliban was coming back. He quoted many statistics. This was back in the spring. Since then things have only got worse. Mr. Delahunt pointed to the USA Today article, the headline. There have been, unfortunately, many headlines in recent times about the resurgent Taliban. We need to do better. This is where it all began September 11, and we need to remember the lessons of the past in Afghanistan. When the Soviets withdrew their forces from Afghanistan, the United States decided to say, well, we no longer have an interest there. We packed up our bags and left when the Soviets left, and what we left behind was a vacuum, a power vacuum; and it was that power vacuum that was exploited by the Taliban that then gave safe haven to al Qaeda, and it was al Qaeda then that launched the attacks of September 11. So we would be making a gross mistake, not once but now twice, if we do not complete the mission in Afghanistan.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to point out that, as others have said, the diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq is now clearly coming back to haunt us because we have not fulfilled the commitment that we made with respect to Afghanistan. The other effect it has had, as the gentleman from Maine pointed out in his remarks just a minute ago, this was a decision that was really both discussed before September 11, but in the very moments after September 11, there was discussion of going after Saddam Hussein in Iraq, even though there was absolutely no evidence, and the President has admitted to this day that there was no evidence of any linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and the terrible attacks of September 11. The result of what we did was taking a situation where the world and international community that had rallied around us, it had passed resolutions at the United Nations and through NATO, and the world had joined us in this effort, and we lost that support. It evaporated, and it is not like we want to win some kind of popularity contest or to win a popularity contest, but we have recognized that we need the cooperation of other nations in terms of intelligence-gathering, in terms of support if we all want to be successful in combating terrorism. The fact of the matter is, by going into Iraq, taking the lid off Pandora's box, unleashing historical forces that existed in Iraq between the Sunni and the Shiia and inflaming the Islamic world, we have certainly helped multiply the force of al Qaeda, both the organization itself, as well as the copycat organizations that have sprung up as a result. They sprung up when the Islamic world saw the United States making a war of choice and going into Iraq, when it became clear to the world that the twin pillars of our argument, the claim that there were weapons of mass destruction and the claim that there was a link between September 11 and al Qaeda was cooperating with Saddam Hussein, the twin pillars of our argument proved to be false. And the world looked at us, and we made those claims before the United Nations. Secretary Powell, with great show of, you know, different charts and graphs and things that he displayed to the world, and the world looked at it and found out it was all untrue. And that fact helped fuel this resentment against the United States, which makes it more difficult for us to gain the cooperation of others in trying to fight terrorism around the world. And so I think that we come here tonight saying the mission has not been accomplished. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden remain where they are, and last week we learned that the CIA is dismantling the one unit that was dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like bring to the attention of our colleagues in this House an opinion editorial (Baltimore Sun, May 11, 2006), written by my constituent Stephen Nordlinger, which I submit for the Record. Mr. Nordlinger is a former Washington correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Mr. Nordlinger's article highlights an issue that has received scant attention in the debate over immigration reform, namely the need to improve and streamline the process for legal immigrants to obtain a green card and eventually qualify for citizenship. Congress has never provided the funds to satisfactorily implement legislation passed in 2000 to ease the immigration process for those who entered the country legally. As a result, those who played by the rules find themselves waiting for years in a bureaucratic maze for their applications to be processed. This creates the perception that those who play by the rules get penalized. As we work to fix our broken system, we must provide the resources that are necessary to ensure that individuals like Mr. Veng Preap, who is the subject of this article, are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. [From the Baltimore Sun, May 11, 2006] An Immigrant's Story (By Stephen Nordlinger) My wife and I first met Veng Preap on a sultry fall day when we walked into the offices of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on a busy street in the center of Siem Reap, near the Angkor Wat complex in Cambodia. We carried a letter from a friend of his in Washington and a pile of World Bank books on international development that Mr. Preap's friend suggested for him. Veng Preap, not his real name to protect his privacy, took us everywhere to see the Angkor monuments and spent evenings speaking with us about his life and such subjects as civil engineering and Buddhism and his views toward organized religion. He showed us the large computer maps he had made as part of the effort by UNESCO to preserve the Angkor complex. On our final day in Siem Reap, I spoke with Mr. Preap about coming to the United States. My wife and I were bowled over by his abilities, especially his rich English vocabulary, for someone who had never left Cambodia. We discussed sponsoring Mr. Preap for a year of study in his specialty, geographic information systems, a highly valued skill for producing computer-based maps. Less than a year later, he arrived at Towson University, its first Cambodian student. He is still in this country nearly 10 years later, and his contribution to the United States has been substantial. He has seized opportunity after opportunity for public service. His life here shows what a talented immigrant can contribute. But at the same time, his American experience is sending another clear message: how easily our government can overlook such a gifted person. It is a message that Congress should heed as it considers new immigration legislation. Mr. Preap has been waiting on line five years and counting on government approval of the first step toward getting a green card to realize his dream of becoming a permanent resident and citizen. It is not the fault of government immigration workers. Congress never provided the funds to carry out legislation passed in 2000 that was intended to ease the immigration process for those like Mr. Preap who had entered the country legally, and there was a flood of applications. Mr. Preap did not have to stay in this country beyond the original year we planned together. But how could such a hugely able person return to impoverished Cambodia, especially when a long-standing dispute between UNESCO and the corrupt authoritarian government had idled him for a year? The Khmer Rouge killed his mother and sister when he was 7. The current government allowed his wife's property to be stolen. Mr. Preap considers himself an American even without the necessary documents. He relishes speaking English. While growing up in Cambodia, he pursued his desire to learn English often by studying alone and by candlelight for fear of being arrested or worse because such studies were banned. At Towson, he insisted on living in a dormitory with American students rather than in an international enclave. Over the past few years, he has earned a second bachelor's degree in geography at Towson and a master's in computer science at Strayer University. He has volunteered for more than 6 years to teach computers to poor Americans and foreigners. He worked for the Voice of America broadcasting to Cambodia. He helped film a documentary on the tsunami disaster. And he helped prepare a giant map for the rotunda at the National Museum of American History showing the various kinds of voting machinery in the nation's election districts. All the while, he has paid taxes on his limited income. Mr. Preap is a skilled computer teacher. The community center where he volunteers has asked him to come two nights a week because it cannot find teachers with his ability. The Internet runs job offers for his skill in geographic information systems. People speak in the abstract about immigration, and much of the discussion is about the need for more farm and restaurant workers. But here is an example of a hugely talented, hard- working immigrant being needlessly thwarted by our government. Mr. Preap cannot take a job and settle down because our immigration system won't let him. Not only are we not taking full advantage of skilled talent among the immigrants, but we may be on the verge of causing more disappointments, by the millions. The huge number of immigrants who have come out of the shadows to demonstrate for the right to become citizens may find a long, long waiting line. The system is just too cumbersome and underfunded. Unless the Bush administration and Congress provide new resources, it is all too likely that broken borders will be replaced by broken promises.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4761, the Offshore Drilling bill. I do so not because I am categorically opposed to expanding the scope of offshore drilling, but because I believe this bill does so in an irresponsible fashion. As proponents of the bill have correctly stated, Canada and Norway have both allowed offshore drilling in an environmentally sound manner. In particular, I believe we can increase our supply of clean natural gas through expanded offshore drilling. This bill, however, would create a blank check for oil and gas drilling without adequate oversight and environmental safeguards. Moreover, this bill diverts much-needed funds from the Federal Government to the States and creates hurdles for States that would prefer to opt-out of costal drilling. In order to create incentives for states to approve offshore drilling, the bill would divert money from leases in Federal waters to States. This includes existing leases that are currently generating Federal revenue. This loss of funds would only increase our ballooning deficit. As the Bush Administration itself has reported to Congress, this bill will reduce Federal revenue from oil leases by several hundred billion dollars in the years ahead. The bill's proponents claim that states can choose not to drill off their shores. But the hurdles it creates makes opting out difficult. In order to protect their waters from drilling within 50 to 100 miles, governors would have to get the concurrence of their State legislatures within one year to petition the Department of the Interior to prevent natural gas only leasing, and within three years to prevent oil leasing. States must re-petition every five years to maintain the protections. And the legislation entices states to drill within 50 miles of the coastline by offering between 50 and 75 percent of the revenues if they opt-in. With such an incentive, valid environmental concerns may easily lose to fiscal ones. Mr. Speaker, we must to take action to develop a comprehensive energy strategy. That requires a policy that includes energy supply, energy efficiency, and energy conservation. We can increase our domestic production of oil and gas through responsible offshore drilling. This bill does not do that. Moreover, this bill does nothing to promote renewable sources of energy that are critical to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. We must adopt a comprehensive long-term energy policy in order to achieve important national security, environmental and economic objectives. Unfortunately, this bill represents a lost opportunity to meet these goals.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend one of my constituents, Lisa Nowak, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) space shuttle Discovery crew set to perform the STS-121 mission to the International Space Station on July 1, 2006. Ms. Nowak was selected as one of seven members of the Discovery crew, where she will serve as a mission specialist. With her experience in the U.S. Navy and at NASA, Ms. Nowak's participation in the STS-121 mission represents the culmination of a career filled with numerous accomplishments. Ms. Nowak graduated from C.W. Woodward High School in Rockville, Maryland and went on to obtain a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985 and Masters of Science degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. After receiving her commission from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985, Ms. Nowak became a Naval Flight Officer in 1987. While serving as a Naval test pilot, Ms. Nowak received several prestigious awards, including the Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal. In 1996, Ms. Nowak was selected by NASA, becoming a mission specialist after completing two years of training and evaluation. The STS-121 mission in July will be Ms. Nowak's first mission into space. During the STS-121 mission to the International Space Station, the crew of the space shuttle Discovery will test new equipment and procedures that increase the safety of the space shuttle. Its mission will be to complete an analysis of safety improvements that debuted on the Return to Flight mission, STS 114, and build upon those tests. Mr. Speaker, I offer my warmest congratulations to Ms. Nowak. Her work plays a vital role in continued advances and improvements to our space program. Her courage, hard work, and accomplishments serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me time. I rise to strongly oppose this amendment, which if enacted will lead to more accidental gun shootings in this country, including more deaths of children. Just last October, this Congress passed a piece of legislation that brought broad immunities to the gun industry. And we can have our differences on that issue. But as part of that legislation that was passed by this Congress and signed by the President back in October, there was a provision, Child Safety Lock Act of 2005. Let me just describe the purposes: To promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers; to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun. Who can argue against those purposes? That was the intent of the legislation. It said, if you are a gun dealer and you are selling a gun, let's at the very least ensure that you have to sell at the same time a gun safety lock to protect against accidental shootings. We know the terrible statistics of accidental shooting deaths of children in this country. Let's not change what this Congress did on a bipartisan basis. And when this came up in the Senate, there was a bipartisan vote in support of this.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the career and good works of my friend, David Osnos, who will celebrate 50 years of practicing law with Arent Fox PLLC on July 9. I was privileged to be his law partner when I worked at the firm of Arent Fox before becoming a Member of Congress. David Osnos has been at the center of many of the major decisions regarding the growth and development of our Nation's Capital over the last 50 years. His advice has been sought out by the movers and shakers of the Washington business world. David Osnos met Abe Pollin in 1958 and became his general counsel. The two often refer to each other as ``brothers.'' Together, they teamed up to change the face of Washington by acquiring sports teams, building the Verizon Center, and working on many other projects. Osnos also serves as the chief lawyer to another great Washington success story--Jim Clark of the Clark Construction Group. Pollin and Clark are just a few examples of those who have worked with Osnos to transform Washington, D.C., from simply a government town into a vibrant cultural and business center. His many good works and his contributions to the development of this great city have made him a legend in the Washington, D.C., legal and business community. A true Arent Fox ``lifer,'' Osnos joined the firm in 1956 upon graduating from Harvard Law School. He has been the heart and soul of the firm for decades, and his work in Washington has mirrored the growth and development of this great city--and Arent Fox's commitment to the city. Osnos served as chairman of the firm's executive committee for 20 years. In that capacity, he participated in much of the development and growth of downtown D.C. and ensured that the law firm's participation in the civic life of the city was unparalleled. Since joining Arent Fox as its seventh lawyer a half-century ago, Osnos has contributed to the growth of the now 265-attorney firm. Always a strong supporter of nonprofit community organizations and devoted to ensuring that Arent Fox was a leading provider of pro bono services, Osnos created a culture of excellence in both ``lawyering'' and community service. He has continued to play that role since stepping down as chairman of the firm. Today he is revered as one of Arent Fox's senior statesman. Mr. Speaker, David Osnos has touched our community with his legal brilliance, his high ethical standards and integrity, and his kind, gentle nature, which has enabled him to be effective as a force for change and action. He has contributed immensely to the legal community, to the District of Columbia, and to our civic life. I am honored to be his friend and to offer him my warmest congratulations on this wonderful milestone in his life, the life of one of D.C.'s finest law firms, and the life of our community.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this this so-called ``Compromise'' Estate Tax proposal. This bill does make compromises--it compromises our children's futures, it compromises the future of our Social Security system, and it compromises our working families. We're facing real issues in this country. We have rising deficits and a Social Security system that needs to be further secured. And today we are debating a bill to effectively repeal a tax that affects only the largest one half of one percent of estates. In the first 10 years after it takes effect, it will cost more than $750 billion, including interest on the added debt. That bill will have to be paid by the rest of America, including our grandchildren. My colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, offered a substitute to reform the estate tax and help shore up Social Security. We could increase the current estate tax exclusion to $3 million per individual and $6 million per couple after 2006 and $3.5 million per individual and $7 million per couple in 2009. This would exempt 99.7 percent of estates from tax liability. And we could funnel estate tax revenues into Social Security, solving a full quarter of the trust fund's shortfall. Let me remind my colleagues that Social Security not only provides essential retirement security for our Nation's seniors, it also provides disability and life insurance for our troops . We had an opportunity to turn estate tax funds into a dedicated source of revenue for this vital program. We had an opportunity for real reform. Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee rejected this opportunity by rejecting the Democratic amendment. Now we are debating some very different priorities. Instead of guaranteeing a source of funding for Social Security for our Nation's seniors and military families, we're talking about guaranteeing a huge tax break to multimillionaires and billionaires. Instead of seriously facing our massive deficits, we're talking about adding to them. Instead of instituting real, clear tax reform, we are talking about a tax rate that is not even defined outright in this bill. I have been willing to consider certain creative proposals that would allow individuals to voluntarily prepay their tax, but this proposal is a non-starter. If we pass this legislation, who will pay for the deficits? This bill will add $750 billion to the national debt over 10 years. Who will pay that price? Certainly not those who can best afford it--they're the ones who are reaping the benefits. This bill gives a small portion of the richest people in this country a gift and asks the middle class and their children to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this false compromise. It's time to stop passing special interest legislation like this and start focusing on real reforms that benefit all Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the Republican leadership's decision to pull this important bipartisan legislation from Floor debate this week. The Voting Rights Act has made a significant difference in ensuring the full inclusion of minorities in the American political process. The legislation pulled today will extend for 25 years key provisions that are set to expire in 2007. While this country has a rich history of valuing the right to vote, it, unfortunately, has a checkered past in ensuring the full access that the Constitution guarantees. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law 5 months after voting rights protesters were beaten as they walked from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama on what became known as ``Bloody Sunday.'' Earlier this week, I held a forum on the need to extend the Voting Rights Act. I heard personal stories from my colleagues in Congress and members of the civil rights community that illustrate the need to extend this legislation. I commend Congressmen John Conyers, Mel Watt and other members of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this bill. I hope that the Republican Leadership can resolve its issues with this landmark legislation and bring it to the House floor as soon as possible.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering this amendment. I think we should all be able to agree on a couple things. This is an extremely important issue. It should be beyond partisan politics. We should use all our means to intercept communications from al Qaeda for our national security. We should also abide by the rule of law. The rule of law is not an a la carte thing. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you like and which laws you don't like. We don't say to the American people when we pass statutes in this Congress and they are duly signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution, pick the ones you like to comply with and ignore the ones we don't like. Well, this President and any President should not be held to any different standard than the American people when it comes to abiding by laws duly passed by this Congress and signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution, and that is what this debate is all about. The amendment is very simple. It is so straightforward, I am just going to read a portion of it right now. ``None of the funds made available in this act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'' and other chapters cited here. In other words, comply with the laws passed by this Congress and signed by the President. Now, we have heard from our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee to trust us, this is a needed program. A lot of us haven't had the benefit of that information. But I would say, many of us have not disputed the need for the program. Maybe we should have this program. We certainly want to intercept any communications from al Qaeda. But it does concern me that the members of the same Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether or not the program as it is currently configured is complying with FISA. That certainly is not a classified thing, whether or not it is configured to comply with FISA. The fact that the members of the Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether it is configured with FISA or not is troubling.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely. If it complies with FISA, it is fine. Now, what is troubling is the Attorney General was asked way back why he didn't come to Congress to seek changes to the law to accommodate this program, and he said he considered that possibility, but then he didn't think Congress would pass it. Well, if that is your conclusion, you don't get to just say, well, I am going to ignore the law and circumvent it. You have to work with Congress. What is really troubling is I think all of us here, if we heard the same information that members of the Intelligence Committee say they have access to, would also conclude it may be a necessary program. But if it is, let's put it within the confines of the law. That is all this amendment does. Yes, it authorizes electronic surveillance. We want it to authorize electronic surveillance. But we want to authorize electronic surveillance within the confines of existing law, and if existing law can't accommodate that program, let's come back here, let's pass a statute and change it. Those who say FISA hasn't been changed, it is outdated, the fact of the matter is we have made eight changes to FISA since its enactment in 1978. We can make more changes to FISA right now to accommodate this program. But let's just make it clear: If you don't think you can get a law passed by the Congress, you don't get to choose to ignore it. It is not an a la carte system. Our Constitution is based on the rule of law. We can protect the American people, we can intercept al Qaeda communications, and we can do it in accordance with the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am pleased to join with my colleagues Mr. Inslee and Mr. Jones in offering this amendment, and the issue here is really straightforward: Are we going to require the Department of Defense to comply with guidelines established by this House and this Congress, or are we going to allow them, one more time, to ignore the will of Congress and roll over us here in the House of Representatives? Here is the situation. Back in 2004, this House passed the defense authorization provision that allowed the Defense Department to go out and set up a new personnel system, but we did it with certain guidelines. We wanted to provide the Department of Defense with greater flexibility, but we also wanted to ensure fairness to the employees. Here is what happened. The DOD took the flexibility part, and they ignored the portions requiring fairness to employees. They ignored the provision that required, for example, an independent entity to arbitrate certain disputes between management and labor. They ignored the provisions that said you have to have a merit system protection board that has an independent judgment, instead of allowing the Defense Department to essentially overrule the decisions, at least on a preliminary basis, of an independent merit system protection board. So they made a number of changes to the congressional intent. As my colleague Mr. Inslee said, you do not have to take our word for it. Just listen to what a Federal judge said, and that is Judge Emmet Sullivan. He is the first person in the District of Columbia to have been appointed by three United States Presidents to three judicial positions, and he ruled in favor of the employees who brought a case and challenged the administration's decision on this. He said it was ``the antithesis of fairness'' the way DOD had set up its system and determined that it was outside the scope of what the Congress had mandated. Now, they have ruled. That ruling came down in February. We have had a Federal judge, therefore, stick up for the Congress. The question is, are we going to stick up for ourselves? Did we mean what we said back there? A Federal judge has looked at the law and said, clearly, the DOD provisions are outside the scope of what we intended. Anyone who takes a fair look at what this Congress said to the administration and to the guidelines that we had in setting up the system would reach the same conclusion. Let us not once more roll over. A Federal judge has done the right thing. They said the administration should not roll over the will of Congress. Let us not allow them to do it. Let us make sure that we do not spend taxpayer money on a system that a Federal judge has said is outside the scope of what Congress intended. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we can say what we want on the floor of this House. We can debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions like this. But what is most important to the American people is not what we say here but what we do here. This resolution does not commit this House to do anything. It does not require this Congress to take any measures to hold the Bush Administration or ourselves accountable for what is happening in Iraq. The Bush administration was totally wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No one has been held accountable. The Bush Administration totally miscalculated the number of troops that would be required to provide greater stability on the ground in post-invasion Iraq. No one was held accountable. The Bush Administration got the costs of the war totally wrong. Again, no one was held accountable. It is a simple principle. If you reward and ignore failure today, you are going to get more failure tomorrow. This House has ignored those failures. While our men and women have been fighting bravely in Iraq, this House has been AWOL when it comes to providing oversight. Instead of providing a system of checks and balances, this Congress has been a blank check and a rubber stamp. If we were a board of directors, we would be sued by shareholders for gross negligence. I proposed a simple amendment to this resolution. It would have required this Congress to actually do something--to conduct adequate oversight and to implement the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, including those requiring this body to reform its own intelligence oversight process. The Republican leadership refused to allow us to debate or vote on my amendment. It apparently wants this House to remain an accountability free zone. Ten hours of debate does not excuse years of giving the administration a blank check on Iraq. A non-binding resolution is not a substitute for an action plan. Let's start doing our job. We owe it to our troops and the American people. Shame on this House for abdicating its constitutional responsibility.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 4 years, I will not offer an amendment to this bill to block the implementation of the May 2003 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 regulations for contracting out work that is performed by Federal employees around the country. The difference this year, Mr. Chairman, is that Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver agreed to my request to include satisfactory language in the bill that is before us. I want to thank them for addressing this issue this year. Both Federal Government employees and private contractors had serious legitimate concerns and complaints about the A-76 competitive sourcing process. The amendment I offered in past years essentially required OMB to go back to the drawing board and develop a uniform competitive sourcing process that addresses everybody's concerns. Despite strong objections and veto threats from the White House, we had spirited debates in the three previous appropriations cycles on the Van Hollen amendment, and each year the House approved the amendment with bipartisan majorities. We passed the Van Hollen amendment for the last 3 years because we recognized that the contracting out process was unfair. That was evidenced by the fact that we passed a number of bills to change the contracting out process on an ad hoc basis in numerous Federal agencies, including Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Agriculture. But the result was a patchwork of inconsistent regulations. The Van Hollen amendment was intended to replace that patchwork of inconsistent regulations with a uniform set of rules fair to all. It did not get rid of the competitive sourcing rules. In essence, it required OMB to go back to the rules that were in place before May 2003 until it fashioned a new set of rules that make sense for everybody. In fiscal year 2005 the Senate approved language similar to the Van Hollen amendment, but even though both Houses approved similar language it did not survive a closed-door TTHUD conference. Last year, in fiscal year 2006, the Senate approved language that was widely viewed as acceptable to the White House, however begrudgingly, and that language survived the conference and was signed into law. That language provided funding for A-76 competitions that allowed Federal workers to present their own most efficient organization, MEO, bid in a competitive sourcing competition, and required private contractor bids to provide for a minimum cost differential, MCD, savings of at least 10 percent or $10 million over the MEO bid. While these public-private competition requirements did not address all of the concerns of Federal employees pertaining to appeal rights, these requirements were considerable improvements in the competitive sourcing process. But now, Mr. Chairman, we are in a brand new fiscal year cycle and once again we need to address critical matters related to the contracting out process. We should not have to do this every year in the appropriations process, Mr. Speaker, but we will repeat this debate year after year until Congress takes definitive action and authorizes competitive sourcing regulations that are fair to Federal employees and private contractors. This year is somewhat different, however. This year, Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver have had the foresight to include competitive souring language in the base fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill that mirrors the MEO/MCD language that was signed into law last year. Therefore, there is no need to offer the amendment I have offered in the past. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the TTHUD appropriations bill on the floor today includes forward-looking language pertaining to A-76 competitive sourcing that precludes the need to offer my amendment again this year. I look forward to working with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and with the authorizers on the House Committee on Government Reform in the future to devise a permanent fix to the A-76 process that is fair to Federal workers and private contractors and that provides American taxpayers with the efficient, cost-effective and quality services they demand and deserve.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor today to recognize the life of Sergeant Alessandro Carbonaro, a courageous Marine who passed away on May 10, 2006 in Germany as a result of injuries he received in Iraq. I had the privilege to attend a moving memorial service for this young man on May 23rd at the National Cathedral. There, those who knew him best testified to his commitment to his friends, family, and country. Alex was a proud and dedicated soldier, a loving son and husband, and a loyal friend who loved ice hockey and played in a local rock band. I thank him for his service to the country, and offer my condolences to his parents, Fulvio and Gilda Carbonaro, his wife, Gilda, and all who had the pleasure and good fortune to know him. I would like to submit to the Record a poem Alex wrote in the Spring of 2004. I hope the words of this talented young man bring comfort to all who mourn his loss. From Afar Dear little star How I miss having you near me. And though your light shines on me from afar I have to continue on and appreciate Your warmth from across the cosmos Dear little shining star At the end of the day I look at you and my emotions just flow from me And all I feel is your warmth. One day things will be different for you and I My little precious star. But until then I must be content to take you in from afar.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the City of Gaithersburg on its tenth anniversary as a ``CHARACTER COUNTS! City.'' Gaithersburg exemplifies the six pillars of a ``CHARACTER COUNTS! City''--trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Today, Gaithersburg celebrates its continued success in serving its citizens and teaching its children the importance of good character. The CHARACTER COUNTS! program in Gaithersburg began in a meeting room filled with parents and children eager to learn the pillars of the program. In just over 10 years, the ideals of CHARACTER COUNTS! have spread through businesses and schools. Today, Gaithersburg has experienced the benefits of ethical education and has grounded the goals of the City in the ethical framework of the CHARACTER COUNTS! program. Through learning and focusing on customer needs, Gaithersburg seeks to continue the honest and open communication that has helped it become a nationally renowned city. Gaithersburg utilizes creativity and fiscal responsibility to promote its health and excellence. All of the people of Gaithersburg--city officials, employees, neighborhood and governmental agencies--strive to continuously improve the City through cooperation and an increased emphasis on customer service, which allows community needs to be identified and met. By maintaining the best aspects of a small town while implementing the most advanced new technologies, Gaithersburg has a diverse array of wonderful characteristics. The residents of Gaithersburg benefit from safe neighborhoods and diverse transportation options. Elected officials have united to create a favorable business environment and to preserve beautiful parks and public places. Gaithersburg is justifiably proud of its family-friendly environment and a citizenry that possesses a strong sense of community and individual responsibility. I am pleased to honor the City of Gaithersburg for its outstanding commitment to values in its governance and daily life. Gaithersburg is a great place to live, work, learn and play, and I congratulate it on its tenth anniversary as a CHARACTER COUNTS! City.