Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, Black History Month gives us an opportunity to reflect on and celebrate the historical accomplishments of African Americans. This year's national theme--``Celebrating Community: A Tribute to Black Fraternal, Social, and Civil Institutions''--reminds us that the strength of the African American community is rooted in its fraternal and civic organizations. I have been privileged to have the opportunity to work with many of African American fraternal and social organizations that are active in my congressional district. They all do important work that makes a tangible difference to the quality of life in our community. This year is the 100th anniversary of Alpha Phi Alpha, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight this fraternity's activities and initiatives in my district. Alpha Phi Alpha is dedicated to serving others and to inspiring and empowering people to achieve success in all aspects of their lives. One of its distinguishing achievements is the establishment of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Foundation Project, which will pay tribute to one of the most influential figures in American history who worked to lead our nation towards greater justice and unity. The group's deep commitment to community empowerment through its numerous programs supporting education--its scholarship and mentoring programs and its efforts to inspire and motivate black youth through its Career Fairs and Black Youth Achievement recognition programs--have made a difference to countless young people. For many years, I have welcomed the opportunity to attend the Montgomery County Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Breakfast program. This event, the success of which is evident in the consistent growth in the number of attendees and the county-wide praise it receives, is a service to Montgomery County. This gathering provides an opportunity for our community to rededicate itself to achieving equality and justice for all. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's impressive list of members includes Justice Thurgood Marshall and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The important and productive work of Alpha Phi Alpha and other organizations began decades ago, yet there is still much work to be done. We must redouble our efforts to provide the African American community, and all of our communities, with the tools needed to ensure that each individual has the opportunity to achieve his or her full God-given potential. During Black History Month, we must recommit ourselves to supporting the ideals of Alpha Phi Alpha and other great institutions as we continue to strive for a better America.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as I talk to my constituents, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike, there is an increasing concern that the Bush administration is not talking straight to the American people on important issues of national security. We know that during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the intelligence community was put under pressure to come up with a certain view of the facts. And where we put ideology over facts, instead of having the facts shape our policy, it was the other way around. We have now learned recently from a former CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, that not only did we play with the facts with respect to whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and whether or not there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but we also ignored many of the facts brought to us by some of the intelligence community with respect to the difficulties we would confront in Iraq in the case of a military invasion there. And what happened, and he has laid this out very clearly, is the administration cherry-picked the information. They always took the rosy view of the facts as they presented us with their support of their case and tended to ignore those facts that did not support their case. Now, whether you were for or against taking military action in Iraq, we should all be able to agree as Americans that it is important that we listen to those people who have experience, who have the professional know-how, people in our intelligence community who have spent years looking into issues around the world and in this case, issues with respect to the Middle East. So I think it should concern all Americans that the administration decided to ignore warnings from nonpartisan individuals who brought information to their attention. And it is not just the failure to take heed of that information. Now we are seeing the consequences in terms of the manpower in different intelligence agencies. U.S. News and World Report has a story about how we are losing many of the most experienced people in the CIA as a result of the fact that they feel pressure to take a political position or that they are forced out of their positions. We are losing many of our most experienced people in the ranks of our intelligence community, and that certainly is not good for our national security. We would have thought that after 9/11 we would have heeded some lessons, and in fact we formed a bipartisan 9/11 Commission that came out with a number of recommendations. One of their recommendations was to do more about the so-called ``lose nukes,'' nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, if you look at what has been done to date, it is very little. We are not doing what we should with respect to the Nunn-Lugar program; and that is why if you look at the most recent report by the 9/11 Commission, they have given this administration and this Congress Ds and Fs, failing grades, in a whole range of categories, making it clear that we have not learned our lessons and that we are not more prepared. In fact, we know we are not prepared because all we have to do is look at the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the recent reports that have come out in the last couple of days showing the total failure of initiative by the Federal Government. You know, a lot of people talk a good game about being prepared to deal with national security threats; but the fact of the matter is when you take the lid off and look underneath as to what is actually being done, the news is not good: more people leaving our intelligence agencies, the fact that we are continuing to get failing grades from the 9/11 Commission. And just the other day in the Government Reform Committee, we had a hearing with a number of whistleblowers, all from national security agencies. These are people who have uncovered abuses within national security agencies, from the FBI to the NSA. And instead of welcoming these individuals who have come forward to present the administration and the public with some truths, the testimony of these individuals, all under oath, sworn under oath, is that they are actually being punished for having come forward to try and tell the truth. Now, again, I do not care what party affiliation you may have; it is not in the security interests of this country for us to punish people who come forward and tell the truth and reveal abuses that are going on within different national security agencies. That undermines our national security. That undermines our credibility as a government. So I would just suggest that as we listen to a lot of the rhetoric from the administration, we remember that, unfortunately, this is the gang that cannot shoot straight with the American people. And in the last couple of days we have learned that that is not just figuratively true, it is also, unfortunately, actually true.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of a few minor changes the Senate made to this legislation after it passed the House last year. Those changes did not alter the defective nature of the underlying bill--or my fundamental opposition to it. From the single largest cut to student aid in the forty year history of the Higher Education Act to new burdens placed on poor people and children served by Medicaid, this reconciliation package targets those with the least in order to pay--or I should really say, partially pay-- for tax cuts that flow disproportionately to those with the most. That's right: When this $39 billion in spending cuts is paired with the $122 billion in tax cuts the House has already approved, the Deficit Reduction Act actually increases the deficit by over $80 billion. Furthermore, as recent press reports have highlighted, it didn't have to be this way. When it comes to restraining government spending, there are plenty of other choices we could have made--like eliminating $22 billion in overpayments to Medicare HMOs or terminating the $10 billion Medicare PPO slush fund or restoring $9.6 billion in drug company rebates to the Medicaid program. All of these provisions were stripped out of this conference report behind closed doors in the middle of the night. The Republican leadership here in Congress has allowed special interest lobbyists to drive the legislative process. As a result, the powerful win--and the people we are supposed to serve lose. Although several higher education provisions I authored related to curtailing excessive lender subsidies, strengthening the school-as- lender program and providing mandatory deferment for active duty military are included in this report, these positive steps are in and of themselves not sufficient to overcome the overarching misdirection of the underlying bill. For that reason, we should reject this legislation and put an end to the special interest politics that produced it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Shirley Lynne and reflect on her many wonderful contributions to our community. This is a time of great sadness, made even sadder by the suddenness of Shirley's passing. There was no time to say our goodbyes. It is a time of great loss for our community because Shirley was always in the middle of so much that went on--especially in her Wheaton community. She would always know exactly what was happening in Wheaton, whether it was the Wheaton Metro development, something happening at Wheaton Mall--Westfields that is--or any other happenings in the community. If you wanted to find out what was going on in Wheaton, Shirley was always in the know. These days many people live side-by-side without ever really getting to know their neighbors. Not Shirley. She knew so much that some of us suspected she had tapped into everybody's telephones. In fact, Shirley got to know her neighbors the old fashioned way--by knocking on their doors and introducing herself. She got to know many of them in her capacity as the Democratic precinct captain. Shirley always had the courage of her convictions. While she was small in height, she had a huge heart and a feisty nature. She never shied away from a tough issue. She always stood up for the underdog and believed deeply in the values and principles of the Democratic Party. Her neighbors mostly followed her lead and she always delivered her precinct for Democratic candidates. I will always be grateful to Shirley for her support in my Congressional election. She took me door-to-door throughout her precinct and introduced me to her friends and neighbors. She also charmed and cajoled many of them into putting up ``Van Hollen'' lawn signs. They might have said ``no'' to me, but no one dared say ``no'' to Shirley Lynne. Needless to say, we won her precinct. Thank you, Shirley. Shirley was also deeply committed to helping individuals with mental illnesses. She spent countless hours helping out at the Thrift Shop on Rockville Pike to benefit the Alliance for the Mentally III. She never asked for anything in return for all that she did to help that important cause or for the other good works she did for our community. The health of this great democracy of ours depends on people of good will joining together to build a better future for our community. That was what Shirley Lynne was all about. She did not sit out life on the sidelines. She made a difference through the many lives she touched and the legacy of a stronger and more caring community that she helped to nourish. We need many more Shirley Lynnes. To Shirley's family, let me say that you are in our hearts and prayers. I especially want to say to Diane, what a wonderful daughter you have been to Shirley. You were best friends and inseparable. I know that you were--and you remain--her greatest joy. Please know that we all share your grief at this painful time, but that we also share your great pride in your mother's many accomplishments.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join all Americans and others around the world in mourning the death of Coretta Scott King, a woman who worked to create change so that all Americans would have the opportunity to experience true freedom and justice. Mrs. King walked alongside her husband the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. until his untimely death. It was her courage and steadfast resolve in the aftermath of this tragedy that led to the launching of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change and the designation of Martin Luther King Day as a federal holiday. As we prepare to begin our observance of Black History Month tomorrow, it is important that we recommit ourselves to continuing the work that Dr. and Mrs. King began more than 40 years ago. I extend my deepest sympathies to Mrs. King's family. I hope that they can find solace in knowing that all Americans are grieving the loss of this courageous woman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the following article on food safety, which I submit for the Record, written by my constituent, Richard Gilmore. Mr. Gilmore is the President and CEO of the GIC Group. Mr. Gilmore's article addresses the issue of food safety. While I may not agree with all of Mr. Gilmore's proposals, I recommend this article to every citizen interested in the integrity of the food supply chain and the safety of the food we consume every day. [From Barron's Online, Nov. 7, 2005] Get Ready for Health Wars (By Rick Gilmore) It's not easy to fight a war when the weapons could be candy bars or milk, and if the battlegrounds are in Halloween candy baskets or dairy farms. And if we ever do master these theaters of warfare, we'll have to prepare for other modes of transmission for pathogens, such as fruit and vegetable juices, canned foods, pastas and other grain-based foods, chicken and fish. As bad as the chances of a pandemic disease may be, the possibilities for a deliberate attack on our food chain are endless. And worse: They are likely because the weapons are immediately accessible, require minimal training, are cheap to produce and offer high kill ratios of innocent citizenry. Even before 9/11, our government had been thinking about these ugly scenarios. Multiple scientific studies model and quantify the human impact of the deliberate release of a toxin at a dairy farm or a pathogen in a major city. A theoretical study on milk said a terrorist needs to add only 10 grams of botulism toxin to a truck-full of milk to get 400,000 casualties. An aerosol-generated attack of anthrax sprayed with the prevailing wind could affect as much as 35% of the nearby population within three days, with a case fatality rate as high as 70%. Governments and the private sector most certainly are attempting to build their own territorial defenses, sometimes more effectively than in others. The Australian method of dealing with candy bars allegedly contaminated with a pesticide was to recall all the affected Mars and Snickers bars, crush them, and dispose of them with a deep burial. The U.K. government detected a carcinogenic food coloring in a Worcestershire sauce ingredient, and it notified consumers and withdrew the product from the shelves. Unfortunately, it did not promptly notify other states in the European Union, violating Europe's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. Such accidents are probably impossible to stop. We also cannot eradicate avian flu if it threatens us, but our combat strategy has many weaknesses. President Bush outlined a new plan to spend $7.1 billion to stockpile medications like Tamiflu and Relenza to combat an outbreak. The country expects to have four million doses on hand by Jan. 1, but the World Health Organization recommends stockpiling doses for at least 25% of the population--73 million Americans. Whatever our country's plans, problems abound. Roche has made it clear that it is already back-ordered more than a year on Tamiflu, and researchers are concerned that there won't be enough antiviral medicine available to blunt the global onslaught of a possible pandemic. A pandemic triggered by a mutated H5N1 virus, moreover, may not be affected by antiviral drugs or any of the vaccines currently in development. Bush belatedly supported efforts to develop cell-based vaccines that can be produced much faster than today's vaccines, but discoveries don't come on timetables. The BioShield Act of 2004 was passed to address just the kind of threat we face with avian flu. It sets out to accomplish three goals: speed the Food and Drug Administration's approval of drugs and vaccines to counter a bioterror attack; create incentives for companies to develop new products through government-guaranteed purchases of pharmaceuticals and biologics; and secure long-term stockpiles of such products in case of an outbreak. Despite the fanfare of the program, progress has been slow, primarily because of underfunding and uncertainties regarding liability insurance and intellectual property protection. When it comes to our defense system against bioterrorism, the whole nation is still held hostage. Each leg of the stool--preparedness, surveillance and protection--is wobbly at the moment. We're planning for an attack within our borders and have placed minimal attention on what occurs outside them, despite the internationalization of our food system. Food ingredients are imported from around the world and exported to consumers and corporate affiliates worldwide. Kansas and the Punjab are part of the same food chain. Staple food items now travel a minimum of 1,400 miles from farm to table. And yet, we have a system in place under the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that focuses on U.S. registrations, port notifications and reporting for American-based food companies. Although we seek information on foreign food companies selling and distributing to U.S. companies, the data do not go back to the point of origin. Even here at home we exclude farms, including aquaculture, from any reporting requirements, though on-farm crops are the most likely targets to serve as carriers for the best-known pathogens--stem rust for cereals, Southern corn-leaf blight, rice blast, potato blight and citrus canker. The European Union takes a more thorough approach to traceability, including every link in the food chain from farm to table. By adhering to a territorial defense strategy, we are leaving ourselves and our trading partners vulnerable when it comes to exports. Right now, a contaminated food item from the U.S. could be exported to another country without our knowledge and without warning to the foreign buyer. European export certification is compulsory unless specifically exempted by the importing country. Another vulnerability: The pathogen itself. Studying likely pathogens that might be used in an attack is somewhat like finding a needle in a haystack. USDA is now funding research centers to deal with plant diseases and zoonoses, which are pathogens transmitted from animals to humans. Still, the focus is on the usual suspects, and not enough on new pathogens, many of which can be developed cheaply by slightly altering the original virus strain. We have learned the hard way that one terrorist cell can inflict more human and economic damage than we can protect at a given time. Congress and the Bush administration are addressing the issue, but haven't created a safer food environment. The system in place is a labyrinth of bureaucratic federal regulations that reflect yesterday's assumptions, not future possibilities. Federal funding for state activities has fallen short of their target, and state enforcement capabilities are not uniformly satisfactory. For industry, duplication of regulatory-agency requirements is costly and confounding, particularly for small and medium- size companies. Despite two years' worth of warnings of an avian-flu pandemic, drug companies still lack liability protection to launch and distribute new vaccines. Closing the loopholes is not a matter of fine tuning because the holes are too wide to close. At home, we need to look to new genomic research that will determine how to develop crops that are resistant to a full range of pathogens. Internationally, there is an urgent need for greater coordination of research and information. No system can be failsafe when it comes to bioterrorism, but we can reshape the one we have today to be more effective.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the American people, this reconciliation spending conference report arrives back in this Chamber substantially unimproved from its original form. Notwithstanding modest revisions in areas like food stamps, low income heating assistance and physician reimbursement under Medicare, this package represents a warped vision for America: take from those with the least, give to those with the most and tell our children they will have to pay for it all later. It would be a disgraceful document at any time of the year, but seems particularly Scrooge-like during this Holiday season. Take Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which this conference report slashes by $6.9 billion. The cost-sharing and premium increases mandated by this legislation fall entirely on the poor--who have no other way to access basic health care for themselves and their families. Or the $2.6 billion in cuts for child support enforcement, foster care and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), designed to assist single parents, foster children and the disabled. Setting aside the immorality of deliberately targeting the most vulnerable among us, child support enforcement dollars actually save the government money through reduced public assistance costs. Then there's higher education, whose $12.7 billion cut accounts for about a third of this $39.7 billion conference agreement. Though $1.6 billion less than the House's original draconian proposal, $12.7 billion remains the single largest cut to student aid in the forty year history of the Higher Education Act. The resulting increase in interest rates, fees and other charges represents an unprecedented disinvestment in our students and their families--at precisely the time our young people are going to need that education the most. We already know that college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than their cohorts who do not attend college, which gives taxpayers a tremendous return on their federal financial aid investment. Additionally, over the course of this past year scores of CEOs from across the country have repeatedly told this Congress that a highly educated workforce is a critical prerequisite for maintaining America's competitive advantage in the knowledge, information and innovation economy of 21st century. Given these realities, it is the height of penny wise, pound foolish bean-counting to put college even further out of reach for the generation of Americans who will have to face these challenges. Yet that's precisely what this conference report does. Mr. Speaker, while I commend the conferees for embracing substantial reforms I have long advocated regarding the need to end 9.5 percent guaranteed floor loans and strengthen oversight of schools acting as lenders, this progress does not begin to redeem the damage done by the rest of the legislation. The $40 billion in spending cuts tonight's proponents take such pride in pronouncing are in fact dwarfed by $110 billion in tax cuts this same Congress proposes to enact this year--tax cuts whose benefits flow disproportionately to the wealthiest in our society. That's right: When all is said and done, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and its accompanying tax legislation will actually increase the deficit by at least $70 billion over the next five years. Mr. Speaker, this fiscal policy is irresponsible and it is unjust. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report--and the breathtaking abuse of power it represents. The purpose of a Defense Appropriations bill is to fund the fighting forces of the United States and to provide our troops with the support and equipment they need. At no time is that obligation more solemn than when our soldiers are at risk in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why it is so inexcusable for this congressional leadership to put our troops in jeopardy by playing politics with this bill. Republicans and Democrats should unite behind a clean, bipartisan conference report that supports our soldiers and provides for a robust national defense. Instead, this legislation arrives on the floor packed with highly divisive, completely extraneous, last minute giveaways to special interests--giveaways the Republican leadership knows perfectly well could never survive the scrutiny of the ordinary legislative process. In that regard, I am particularly appalled by the inclusion of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) drilling in this legislation. And I am not alone: Five high profile military officials--including retired General Anthony Zinni--recently implored Congress not to politicize military spending by embroiling it in the ANWR debate. Senator McCain called the ANWR insertion ``disgraceful'' and ``disgusting''. Mr. Speaker, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a spectacular arctic ecosystem, sustaining wildlife so diverse it is sometimes called the American Serengeti. Along with a sizable majority of Americans, I continue to believe we should not despoil this national treasure for what amounts to six months worth of gasoline ten years from now. Instead, we should move expeditiously to diversify the Nation's fuel mix away from our reliance on foreign oil and embrace the renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies of the 21st century. I agree with General Zinni and Senator McCain: It is the height of irresponsibility to be playing games with needed defense funds when our men and women in uniform are in harm's way--and I am hopeful the Senate will reject inclusion of this extremely controversial and unrelated environmental provision in this military spending bill. Moreover, I strongly object to the eleventh hour special interest liability protections added to this legislation. Once again, this kind of provision is not germane to the defense appropriations process. Furthermore, I am concerned it fails to provide adequate compensation to legitimately injured patients. Finally, the Defense Appropriations bill is no place to be making spending decisions that have nothing to do with defense. Yet this bill contains a 1% across-the-board spending cut affecting almost every appropriations bill we have passed this year. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I voted in favor of the defense authorization bill to provide the ongoing authority for ensuring our national defense. I am particularly pleased that the conferees on that bill saw fit to include Senator McCain's language on the humane treatment of prisoners held in American custody. But on this vote I will not reward the abuse of power dragging down this bill. Shame on this House for playing politics with our troops during wartime. I urge my colleagues to vote no so we can return quickly with a defense bill worthy of our military's service and sacrifice.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Senate rightly rejected the Defense Appropriations conference report--not because they didn't support our troops, but because they honored their service enough to insist on a military spending bill unsullied by special interest politics. While I continue to have concerns about a number of unrelated provisions in the underlying bill, I also believe it is critical to ensure that our soldiers get the equipment they need to protect themselves and succeed in their missions. Therefore, with the ANWR issue out of the way, I am prepared to support this legislation and forward it to the President for his signature.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that this Congress is at long last attempting to address the looming crisis in our nation's pension system. The bad news is that the best available evidence suggests that today's optimistically entitled Pension Protection Act doesn't achieve its stated objective. Pension rules are complex. But in my view, the goals of pension policy are really pretty simple. First, we must protect taxpayers from an S&L style bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). And second, we must shore up the long term viability of the pension benefits promised our workers. The PBGC today faces a current deficit of about $23 billion, with additional liabilities estimated at up to $100 billion. However, rather than closing that gap, H.R. 2830 actually increases the PBGC's deficit by $9 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot support pension legislation that puts taxpayers in greater jeopardy than they already face today. With respect to pension security, we would do well to recall the Hippocratic admonition to ``First, Do No Harm''. Congressional action that results in companies terminating or freezing or failing to establish defined benefit plans in the first place hurts precisely the same workers we say we are trying to help. Yet that's precisely what this bill does. A recent survey of the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets (CIEBA), an organization representing Chief Investment Officers from the nation's largest corporations, found that 60% of pension plans would be frozen or terminated if this legislation becomes law. The CIEBA goes on to warn that HR 2830 would ``have long term consequences for current and future workers, with the potential to damage the retirement security of millions of Americans.'' If we are not effectively securing the earned pension benefits of our workers, then what are we doing here today? Mr. Speaker, I have a final objection to today's proceedings regarding the inability of our side to offer a Democratic substitute. If we had been allowed a substitute, this House would have had an opportunity to debate a range of critical issues not adequately addressed by the underlying bill--including the inappropriate use of the PBGC as a dumping ground for underfunded pensions run by companies seeking a competitive advantage in the marketplace, the right of older workers not to face age discrimination under federal pension rules and the ability of all workers to receive disinterested investment advice for their company sponsored defined contribution plans. Because the majority has abused its procedural power to block our alternative, these and other important issues that ought to be receiving our careful attention will not see the light of this day. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the millions of hardworking Americans counting on their hard-earned pension benefits to support themselves and their families in retirement, this Congress has an obligation to pass meaningful pension reform. However, I cannot and I will not support pension legislation that further imperils the taxpayers and workers real pension reform is supposed to serve. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2830, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the leadership of this House has failed both the American people and the people of Iraq. Today our country had a tremendous opportunity to stand united and join together in congratulating the Iraqi people on their elections for the first full-term National Assembly. We had a chance to send a shared message of gratitude to our troops and the families who have sacrificed so much. Instead, the Republican leadership chose the politics of division over unity of purpose. In a reprehensible act of blatant partisanship, they squandered a special opportunity to send a strong message and cynically exploited our troops for political gain. Today, Congressman Lantos offered us an opportunity to stand together by introducing a resolution that congratulates the people of Iraq on the recent election and expresses our thanks to the men and women of our Armed Forces who are serving there. That resolution would have received a unanimous vote in this House. But the Republican leadership did not want a unanimous vote in support of our troops and the people of Iraq. They denied us the opportunity to cast a vote on the Lantos resolution. The hypocrisy of their action should not be lost on the American people. At a time when we all want to celebrate the right of the Iraqi people to vote in Iraq, the Republican leadership denied this House the right to vote on the unifying resolution offered by Mr. Lantos. And the very people who tell us each day that our Nation should speak with one voice on Iraq crafted a resolution that was deliberately designed to splinter the Members of this House. The American people can respect genuine differences of opinion on the best way to move forward in Iraq. We should have a healthy debate about the best way to bring our troops home. Questions of war and peace are matters of conscience. When so many American and Iraqi lives hang in the balance, each of us has a responsibility to exercise our best judgment. What is so disappointing about the actions of the Republican leadership today is that it chose to turn an opportunity for bipartisanship into a political ploy. It demonstrated a smallness of mind that placed politics over the national interest. I have never before voted ``present'' on a resolution in the House. I hope I do not feel compelled to do so again in the future. But there are times we have an obligation to send a message that we reject the politics of cynicism. The Republican resolution is less about achieving victory in Iraq than victory at the polls in 2006. We must refuse to participate in a political charade. There are few things in politics as despicable as using our troops and the democratic aspirations of the people of Iraq as pawns in a political game. Today's action by the Republican leadership has brought shame upon this House. It is time to put the national interest above political posturing.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Congress has been negligent in dealing with the challenge of border security, homeland security and immigration policy reform. We must do what is necessary to protect our homeland and implement comprehensive immigration reform. It is time to address these issues in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to meet the test. This bill does contain some important provisions that will enhance border security. Indeed, the bill that emerged from the Homeland Security Committee was one that I could basically support. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee put politics over policy and added a number of highly objectionable provisions. Some of these provisions will turn a number of well-intentioned and law abiding citizens into criminals and felons. Other provisions penalize many individuals who have come to this country lawfully but have, through no fault of their own, become ensnared in a bureaucratic snafu with the Citizenship and Immigration Services where if someone misses a deadline by a day in changing their visa category they can be prosecuted for unlawful presence. Moreover, visitors from other countries who are here on tourist visas but cannot return to their country within the visa timeframe because of a natural disaster or the outbreak of civil war will be made into criminals. This bill is also flawed in a number of other respects. First, it creates the dangerous illusion that we are addressing the most pressing homeland security issues, when we are not. The 9/11 Commission recently released its assessment of the progress being made by the Bush administration and this Congress on the adoption of its recommendations. More than half of the grades issued by the commission were Ds or Fs. This bill does not address any of the shortcomings identified by the 9/11 Commission. As such, it is a fraud on the American people to pretend that this bill significantly enhances homeland security. We are missing an important opportunity to remedy the homeland security failures identified by the 9/11 Commission. Finally, this bill contains another gaping hole--the failure to address the issue of the approximately 11 million undocumented persons that are currently in the United States. President Bush has repeatedly stated that any immigration reform effort must find a way to bring these individuals out of the shadows of our communities. A number of thoughtful bills have been introduced to address that issue, including one introduced by two of our Republican colleagues, Representatives Flake and Kolbe. On the Senate side, the McCain-Kennedy legislation contains a number of ideas to address this issue. By refusing to allow a vote on these proposals, we do a disservice to our Nation. Once again, the House is abdicating its responsibility by failing to squarely meet the challenge we face. Let me also say a word about the amendment offered to this bill to construct a partial fence along our southwest border. I support the construction of a fence to better secure our border and supported its funding in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. However, the amendment offered by Mr. Duncan doesn't simply provide for a fence. In a typical example of congressional over-reaching and micromanagement, the amendment 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 limiting illegal immigration and allow it to be built in the most cost-effective manner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill contains some positive changes that enhance border security at the same time it leaves a number of gaping holes and includes a number of provisions that take us in the wrong direction. On balance, I believe this is a flawed bill. I hope the Senate will address the serious shortcomings in this bill so we can adopt a meaningful bill that meets the challenges that we face.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to explain my decision to vote against the Conference Report on the PATRIOT Act. Some of the provisions that are being authorized in this bill provide law enforcement officials with important tools that may be helpful in detecting and disrupting terrorist activities. I support those provisions. Other provisions, however, fail to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the privacy rights of innocent citizens are protected. It is very important that, in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans cherish, we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect. We can ensure that the government has the necessary surveillance powers without sacrificing the privacy rights of Americans. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is essential that we stregthen our ability to detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist activities. Many provisions in the PATRIOT Act accomplish this objective in a balanced way. Other provisions, however, leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked, unwarranted, and potentially abusive invasions of privacy. Many of these concerns were addressed in the Senate bill that passed by bipartisan, unanimous support. unfortunately, the Conference abandoned many of the safeguards in the final Conference agreement. The Conference Report falls short in a number of areas. Let me focus on 2 of these issues--the inadequate checks on the National Security Letters and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court orders. The ``National Security Letters'' provision: (1.) This authorization has no sunset; (2.) It provides no judicial review of a National Security Letter gag order. This is a departure from current law which allows the recipient of such a Letter to challenge it in court. The conference agreement requires the court to accept the government's assertion as ``conclusive''. (3.) Moreover, the conference report allows the government to maintain information gathered from the National Security Letters to be kept forever in government databases. ``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act'' (FISA) Court Orders for Tangible Things (section 215): (1) Unlike the Senate bill, the Conference Report allows the government to obtain personal information on a mere showing of ``relevance'', thereby striking the safeguard contained in the Senate passed bill that required a 3-part test. This allows the government to obtain this information without demonstrating that the information that they are seeking has some connection to a terrorist or a spy. (2) The conference report does not permit the recipient of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. (3) Finally, the conference report allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial challenge to a section 215 order. The court must review any government submission in secret, whether or not it contains classified material. It is important that any policy that is advanced to enhance our nation's security always maintains appropriate ``sunshine'' and checks and balances on those law enforcement and intelligence agencies that are empowered to promote national security. History reminds us that these law enforcement tools can be overzealously used and may also be directed at innocent parties. The conference report on the PATRIOT Act that is before us today fails to strike the proper balance. The Senate version included many of the necessary safeguards. Unfortunately, many of those provisions were abandoned by the Conference Committee. As a result I voted in favor of Mr. Conyers' Motion to Recommit the Conference Report to the Conference Committee so that the conferees could return to the consideration of the Senate passed bill. Unfortunately, this motion was defeated. Therefore, I must vote against the passage of the Conference Report that is before us today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this FY 2006 Labor-HHS Conference Report. Almost a month ago, this House rejected an earlier version of this legislation by a vote of 209-224 because it shortchanged the nation's critical education, health care and job training priorities. Today we are being asked to pass judgment again on a virtually identical piece of legislation--as if shuffling $180 million between accounts in a $602 billion conference report can begin to compensate for the deficiencies in the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill used to be called ``the people's bill.'' So what are the people getting today? Here's a sample from this legislation's hall of shame: There are $779 million in cuts for No Child Left Behind, meaning 3.1 million kids won't get the reading and math help they were promised. A freeze in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LlHEAP-- despite the 44 percent increase in natural gas prices and 24 percent increase in home heating oil prices expected this winter. This House has refused to provide sufficient help to families in need despite the fact that it voted a few months ago to give the oil and gas industry a $14 billion tax subsidy. A cut in real terms from the National Institutes of Health that will result in NIH funding 505 fewer research grants than it did just two years ago. A 5 percent cut in critical services for the 7.4 million unemployed and displaced workers left behind by our increasingly globalized economy. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. While this conference report is not completely without merit--ranging from its increased funding for rural health to the reinstatement of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' women worker survey--its overarching trajectory falls far short of what our nation and its people deserve. I do not believe that it reflects the values and priorities of the American people.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today we are presented with Act II of the Republican majority's ongoing and tragically misguided reconciliation saga. In Act I, we learned who the majority felt most deserved to bear the brunt of their spending cuts: poor citizens who rely on Medicaid, hungry people who turn to food stamps and families trying to afford college. Now in Act II we are learning where they propose that money go: for tax breaks, that are targeted primarily to benefit the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. And what is the net result? An even bigger deficit that will have to be paid for by our children. Let me be clear: In a properly prioritized budget, I believe there is room for targeted, fiscally responsible tax relief. And that's precisely the kind of tax relief Democrats are offering in our substitute today. The Democratic alternative extends all of the tax cuts set to expire next year--including such items as the deduction for college tuition expenses, incentives for brownfields cleanup and the 15-year depreciation schedule for certain small business expenses. Moreover, unlike the Republican package, Democrats provide guaranteed alternative minimum tax relief--so that 16 million middle-class taxpayers won't be unfairly ensnared by the AMT. Finally, and importantly, the Democratic substitute is completely paid for--and won't add a dime to the Federal deficit. By contrast, when considered in its entirety, the Republican reconciliation package will actually increase the deficit--at a time when the nation's debt is already running over $8 trillion. Additionally, when faced with the choice of whether to use the reconciliation process to protect AMT relief for middle-class taxpayers or tax breaks for the wealthiest investors, the Republicans chose to leave AMT relief unprotected while extending tax -breaks on capital gains and dividends that don't even expire until 2008--tax breaks over half of whose benefits flow to those who made over $1 million last year. Mr. Speaker, during a time of war, in the aftermath of a catastrophic hurricane, with 45 million Americans lacking health insurance and skyrocketing home heating costs projected this winter, this majority is proposing to take from those with the least, give to those with the most--and tell our children they will have to pay for it all later. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. In fact, I would submit that--in this season above all seasons--we are required to do better. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and support the fiscally responsible Democratic substitute.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today is the 64th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the infamous day in 1941 that led us into World War II. It is appropriate that I rise today to honor the military retirees' grassroots organization known as the Class Act Group. After nearly ten years of citizen advocacy, urging Congress to fully restore their promised military health care benefits, this noble group of warriors has decided to call it a day and close its offices. CAG's roots date back to July 16, 1996, when attorney George E. Day filed a law suit in Federal Court in Pensacola, Florida on behalf of retired Air Force Colonels William O. Schism and Robert Reinlie. The suit alleged breach of contract with military retirees over the age of 65 years by the failure of the U.S. to provide the military medical care it had promised. But George Day is not just any lawyer. Col. George ``Bud'' Day (Retired) is a veteran of more than 30 years service in the Armed Forces of the United States. He joined the Marine Corps in 1942 and served 30 months in the South Pacific as a noncommissioned officer. He received an appointment as a Second Lieutenant in the National Guard in 1950. He was called to active duty in the Air Force in 1951. He served two tours in the Far East as a fighter-bomber pilot during the Korean War. In April 1967, Colonel Day was assigned to the 31st Tac Fighter Wing at Tuy Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. Shot down over North Vietnam on August 26, 1967, he spent 67 months as a Prisoner of War. Colonel Day was the only POW to escape from prison in North Vietnam and then to be recaptured by the Viet Cong in the South. He is also credited with living through the first ``no chute'' bailout from a burning jet fighter in England in 1955. Colonel Day holds every significant combat award. He is the nation's most highly decorated officer since General Douglass MacArthur. He holds nearly seventy military decorations and awards of which more than fifty are for combat. Most notable are the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with nine Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star for Valor with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart with three Clusters and the POW ribbon. He wears twelve Campaign Battle Stars. So, Mr. Speaker, Col. Day's long, distinguished record shows that he was a fighter in the field defending his comrades and country and, I can attest, he has been just as determined a fighter in the courtroom, too. He recruited his own army of grassroots soldiers who, in town meetings and over the Internet, gathered together to exercise their constitutional freedoms to fight for their rights, just as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all the Founding Fathers imagined they would. The CAG suit filed in 1996 was based on the fact that agents of the Federal Government--including military recruiters, active duty members of the uniformed services, and other government officials--routinely promised that the government would provide lifetime health care to military retirees and their dependents if they served a career of at least 20 years in uniformed service. The promise of lifetime care was made and fulfilled for generations, but until 1956 Congress had never passed a statute that specified what level of care would be provided. On December 7, 1956 a new law took effect with a provision that provided for health care at military facilities on a ``space available'' basis. This new law had the practical effect of defining and limiting the Federal Government's commitment to military retiree health care, by conditioning such care on space availability. In other words, after 1956, health care that had been promised and routinely delivered for years was no longer assured. As military bases began to close and downsize, the availability of health care became more and more limited. Subsequent laws completely removed Medicare- eligible military retirees from the military health care system. The 1956 law ``changed the rules in the middle of the game'' for military retirees who entered the service prior to December 7, 1956. When they agreed to enter the service, they had promises--a verbal contract--of lifetime health care that routinely were fulfilled. When they left the service 20 or more years later, they lived under a new set of rules. In short, the health care rug was pulled out from under them. On November 18, 2002, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that only Congress can authorize the level of health care the government will provide to military retirees; therefore, promises made by military recruiters or government officials were not binding. On June 2, 2003, the Supreme Court declined to consider Col. Day's appeal of the ruling, putting an end to the law suit. Although the Appeals Court did not rule in favor of the plaintiffs, the language of the Court ruling was very clear that the plaintiffs had won a moral victory: Accordingly, we must affirm the district court's judgment and can do no more than hope Congress will make good on the promises recruiters made in good faith to plaintiffs and others of the World War II and Korean War era--from 1941 to 1956, when Congress enacted its first health care insurance act for military members, excluding older retirees. . . . We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim. . . . Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees. Mr. Speaker, CAG and the nationwide grassroots group did in fact win a substantial legislative victory. In 2000, Congress responded to an intense national grassroots campaign waged by military retirees by enacting Tricare for Life (TFL), which provides health care to Medicare-eligible military retirees (generally age 65 or older). TFL did not go all the way to fulfill the government's promise of lifetime health care for our Nation's warriors, but it was a substantial step forward in that effort. The military retirees grassroots group also actively encouraged Congress to address the unfulfilled health care needs of many younger military retirees who find they are not well served by the military health care system known as Tricare Standard, a plan for retirees who do not live near military bases that could otherwise provide their promised military health care. Mr. Speaker, the men and women at the core of the Class Act Group have grown old serving their country. They were heroes in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. And they were heroes in the courtroom and in the halls of government fighting for their rights. They have fought the good fight, but as good soldiers they know when it is time to regroup. Even with the advent of TFL these grassroots warriors kept fighting for full restoration of their promised health care. But they know that budget battles in Congress have gotten tougher, that new generations of wounded veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for even basic health care, let alone health care in their distant golden years. And there are other battles that need to be fought by these old warriors. Floyd Sears, one of the hardiest fighters on the grassroots battlefront, the leader of the Internet campaign for the restoration of military retiree health care, saw his home in Biloxi, Mississippi, destroyed by hurricane Katrina. He is living in an RV powered by a generator as he oversees the rebuilding of his house. Jim Whittington, Floyd's best friend and comrade, lost electricity in his Laurel, Mississippi, home for almost a month. He is rebuilding his Internet business. Col. Day is over 80 years old now and is ready to move on and support our new generation of veterans. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the grassroots warriors have fought the good fight. As the Class Act Group closes its doors, we should honor them and thank them for all they have done for our country. They will always be heroes to me.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we went to war in Iraq in an irresponsible way; we should leave Iraq in a responsible way. The Administration's slogan of ``stay the course'' is not a strategy. More of the same is unacceptable. We must change course. The Bush Administration has tried to stifle debate here at home by shamelessly challenging the patriotism of those who question their approach. The time has come for a serious debate on this issue of utmost importance to the American people. We should bring our troops home as quickly and safely as possible. But bringing our troops home is only part of a successful strategy for leaving Iraq. We must redeploy our troops in a way that does not unleash even more bloodshed and killing in Iraq, and does not create a vacuum that will be exploited by Al Queda and terrorist elements. Our nation went to war in Iraq based on false information and gross distortions of the facts made by President Bush and others in his Administration. Before the invasion, a number of us gave speeches on the floor of this House outlining the dangers of going to war in Iraq. The Bush Administration and the Congress chose to disregard the warnings that were raised by many people who had experience on foreign policy issues regarding the Persian Gulf region. We have made many mistakes during the war, but many of the results of our invasion were predictable. As I said on this floor prior to the war: ``The President has presented a utopian vision of democracy breaking out in the Middle East after we invade Iraq. It is just as easy to imagine a scenario where difficulties in Iraq and the American action there fuel resentment toward occupying American troops and inflame the region against us, strengthening the hands of radical Islamic fundamentalists and making it more difficult to promote democracy and other U.S. goals in the region.'' Now, more than two and half years after the invasion of Iraq, those predictions have unfortunately proved true. The Administration utterly failed to understand the dynamics and history of Iraq. They failed to understand the opening that Sunni grievances and old rivalries would give to our enemies, to Al Queda and others. The Administration built its actions on a foundation of sand--on rosy scenarios and wishful thinking. We never had a plan to deal with the forces we were unleashing in Iraq and we are dealing with the consequences now. There have been over 2,079 confirmed American deaths in Iraq. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Having invaded Iraq, the United States has a moral and national security obligation to do everything possible to prevent the situation from spiraling even farther out of control. We must devise a plan to leave Iraq in a way that maximizes the chances for stability and minimizes the possibilities of a full scale civil war erupting. The insurgency today consists primarily of former Baathists who lost their grip on power and who fear for their future security in a country dominated by the Shia. They have resorted to a bloody campaign of terrorist attacks to prevent the establishment of a central government. The Bush Administration has failed to develop a political strategy that will end the violence. This conflict will not be resolved by military force. It requires a diplomatic and political solution. Any resolution must address the Sunni fears that are feeding much of the violence. At the same time, any resolution must recognize the facts on the ground--the Kurds will never again allow themselves to be victimized by a central government in Bagdhad and the Shia, by virtue of their majority status, will never again allow themselves to be dominated by others. The Bush Administration's efforts to achieve a political solution have been grossly inadequate. However, the prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution are less likely in the face of a total immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The more likely result would be a surge in killings of innocent Iraqis as different groups compete for power in the vacuum left by the immediate and total departure of American forces. That bloodshed would be a great stain on our nation and a terrible blow to our already shattered credibility. Moreover, just as the precipitous U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal from that country opened the door to the Taliban regime, the immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq--without a political plan in place--would most benefit extremist and terrorist groups. Our strategy for leaving Iraq must also recognize that Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey and Syria--all have strong interests in the future of Iraq. Our plan must ensure that the United Nations and the international community will work to prevent others from exploiting the situation in Iraq at the expense of the Iraqi people and the security of the region and the United States. The Senate Democrats, under the leadership of Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin have proposed a path for bringing our troops home in an orderly way that minimizes the likelihood of an outbreak of a full scale civil war in Iraq. In the aftermath of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001, the world rallied to our side. The international community supported our decision to go into Afghanistan to root out Al Queda. The Bush Administration squandered that international good will. Instead, it began a war of choice against Iraq. As many predicted before the invasion, that war has fueled the ranks of Al Queda and strengthened the jihadists. We must not compound the blunders of the Bush Administration by creating the conditions for even more bloodshed in Iraq and allowing it to become a haven and launching pad for terrorist activities. This Congress has not had a serious debate on Iraq. Instead, the Republican leadership in this House has worked to hide from the American people the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration's policies on Iraq. The time is long overdue for us to have a serious discussion on this issue of the greatest importance to the American people. Our troops and their families deserve no less.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this reckless and misguided budget reconciliation package. At their heart, budgets are about our priorities. And the priorities we choose reflect the values we hold dear. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this budget represents the priorities of the American people--and it flies directly in the face of the values that have always made this nation shine. First of all, let's dispense with the fiction that this measure is some kind of down payment on the majority's newfound commitment to fiscal responsibility. In point of fact, the net effect of these spending cuts--when paired with their accompanying tax cuts--will be to actually increase the deficit by $20 billion. So much for fiscal responsibility. And where are these cuts coming from? Are we scaling back the billions in excess payments to HMOs and drug companies in the Medicare bill? Or the billions in tax breaks for corporate interests in the FSC/ ETI bill? Or the billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in the energy bill? Of course not. Instead, in the aftermath of a lethal hurricane, with stagnant wages and rising poverty, 45 million Americans uninsured, and unprecedented global competition, we are slashing Medicaid for the poor, food stamps for the hungry and financial assistance to families trying to afford college. This budget is a disgrace. Parts of our Nation were recently devastated by a natural disaster. Tonight, the damage being done is entirely man-made, and entirely avoidable. The wounds are self- inflicted. Because I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, I want to say a word about the Republicans' unprecedented Raid on Student Aid. When the Higher Education Act was signed into law in 1965, it began a 40-year federal commitment to throw open the doors of higher education to every college-ready student, regardless of their family's income. It was the right thing to do for our students--and the smart thing to do for our country. You see, in addition to the importance of giving every child the opportunity to reach his or her full potential, the reality is that college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than their counterparts who don't attend college. That's an enormous return the taxpayers' original investment--an investment that is only going to get more important as we compete to win in the global marketplace of the 21st century. Which is why it is simply astonishing that this package includes the single largest cut to federal student aid in the 40-year history of the Higher Education program. By draining $15 billion out of student financial assistance, we are effectively tacking $5800 onto the cost of college for today's average student. We are making college less affordable at a time when we should be doing precisely the opposite. Predictably, the result will be less people going to college. The Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance has already projected that financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next decade, and another two million high school graduates from attending any college at all. This reconciliation package is going to make that statistic much, much worse. And for what? To pay--or I should really say partially pay--for tax cuts, over 50 percent of which go to the top .2 percent of households already earning over $1 million a year. Mr. Speaker, the choices in our budgets should reflect the values and priorities of the American people. This budget fails that test. I am confident that if this budget was supposed to be a mirror of American values, the American people would not recognize themselves. We can do so much better than this.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the ill-conceived Conference Report for H.R. 3010, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. This bill is flawed in so many ways and is a disservice to the American people. It is the latest move in the steady drumbeat of a Republican legislative agenda that makes working and middle class Americans pay for the tax cuts that benefit the ultra-wealthiest Americans. And it comes at a time when we are confronting the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the huge costs of waging the ongoing war in Iraq. Overall, this conference report cuts education, health care, and human services by $1.5 billion below what was spent on these efforts last year. Meanwhile, Republicans plan to spend $11 billion this week on a capital gains and dividend income tax cut that will provide 53 percent of its benefit to people making more than $1 million. Overall, Republicans will spend more on tax cuts this week alone, $70 billion, than on both the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, $68 billion, for an entire year. These are just a few victims of the Republican bill. No Child Left Behind funding is cut by $784 million, the first time NCLB will have been cut since the law was enacted. Title I, which is the core of NCLB's efforts to improve reading and math skills, receives the smallest increase in 8 years--only $100 million--which means 3.1 million low-income children will be left behind. The maximum Pell grant is frozen for the fourth straight year, and no new funding is provided for all other student financial aid and support programs, even though college costs have increased by $3,095, 34 percent, since 2001. Consumers are expected to pay 46 percent more for natural gas and 28 percent more for home heating oil this winter, yet Republicans refused to increase funding for LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low-income seniors and children. Nearly 46 million Americans are without health insurance yet Republicans provide virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers beyond those approved last year. Republicans also eliminate the Healthy Communities Access Program, $83 million, and state planning grants to improve health care coverage, $11 million. The conference agreement does not include the $8.1 billion in emergency funding provided in the Senate bill for pandemic flu preparedness, or any part of the $7.1 billion requested by the administration for that purpose. The conference agreement freezes or cuts most programs below their FY 2005 levels, including the following: International assistance grants to eradicate child labor and protect worker rights through the Bureau of International Labor Affairs are cut by 21.4 percent. Community college training grants are cut by 50 percent in each of FY 2005 and FY 2006. Unemployment insurance and employment service offices to help the unemployed are cut by 6.7 percent. Health professions training grants are cut by 69 percent. The Healthy Communities Access Program is eliminated. The Centers for Disease Control is cut by 3.9 percent. Comprehensive school reform state grants are eliminated. Even Start family literacy services are cut by 55.6 percent. Education technology grants are cut by 44.6 percent. The education block grant for local initiatives is cut by 49.6 percent. Safe and drug free schools grants are cut by 20 percent. Under the conference agreement, only a few programs receive modest increases over FY 2005 and--in most cases--even these increases are below the amounts sought by the administration. While the conference agreement restores many of the 50 programs proposed for termination in the House bill, these restorations were made at the expense of funding for priority programs, such as community health services, Title 1 grants for low-income children, and special education grants, and Pell grants. NIH receives a mere 0.7 percent increase--this does not even keep pace with inflation and does not meet our health research needs. Title 1 grants for low-income children receive a 0.8 percent increase--the smallest increase in 8 years. Special education grants receive a 0.9 percent increase--the smallest increase in a decade. The maximum Pell grant is frozen at $4,050 for the fourth consecutive year compared to the $4,100 provided in the House bill. Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is that the bill cuts essential health and education programs to pay for ill-conceived tax cuts. I do not believe this bill reflects the priorities and values of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill for the relief of Judith Tanjoh and her children Serge, Marie, Emmanuel and Roger Tikum. This family last entered the United States in 1988 in A-2 diplomatic status from the Republic of Cameroon when the now deceased husband of Judith Tanjoh was attached to the Cameroon Embassy. For the next several years the family lived in lawful status in the U.S. through December 31, 1997 when the husband was recalled to the Cameroon because of Judith's political activities against the Cameroon government. Cameroon has been found by the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to possess a ``poor human rights record'', continuing to commit ``numerous serious abuses''. After her husband's recall, Judith decided to file for asylum. However, in turn her application was denied by the INS Asylum Office, the Immigration Judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. When the Board of Immigration Appeals ``affirmed without opinion'' the denial of the asylum application by the Immigration Judge on December 17, 2002, it also permitted the family to ``voluntarily depart the U.S. . . . within 30 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by the district director [of the INS]''. Within that 30-day period, Judith's attorneys filed for an extension of the voluntary departure period and a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Each filing was in accordance with the family's statutory and regulatory rights. The INS has never responded to the request for extension of the voluntary departure period. The 4th Circuit issued its mandate on November 10, 2003 ``enforcing the Board's order of December 17, 2002''. Of course, part of that order was permitting the family to voluntarily depart within 30 days. While these proceedings were pending, INS issued Judith authorization to work and she obtained employment as a certified nursing assistant. Her employer has sponsored her (and her children derivatively) for lawful permanent residence via the Labor Certification process. That application, initially filed prior to April 30, 2001, has been certified by the U.S. Department of Labor and an Immigrant Worker's Visa Classification Petition has been pending with INS since July, 2003. An INS General Counsel's Memo advises INS Government Attorneys to no longer apply the ``exceptional and compelling circumstances'' standard to motions to reopen for consideration of adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence for persons who have been in deportation proceedings. The Memo instructs that the INS should join in such a motion (which otherwise could not be filed if more than 3 months have expired since the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals) if the alien is statutorily eligible and warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. Judith's attorneys have twice requested the INS Chief Counsel's Office in Baltimore to join in such a motion in this case. Since Judith's labor certification was timely filed to allow her to adjust her status to permanent residence, she is statutorily eligible. The family also clearly warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. Judith has been a hardworking, tax-paying certified nursing assistant for several years as she has worked with INS permission. The children have successfully progressed through our school system for the last 15 years. The Tanjoh/Tikum family are not criminals. They are not terrorists. The children fear being uprooted from their true home in the U.S. and forced to live in a human rights abusive country which they do not know and whose pre-dominant language they do not speak. Yet, the INS Government Attorneys have coldly rejected each overture for clemency. First, by insisting that the harsher ``exceptional and compelling circumstances'' standard applies and that these circumstances were neither exceptional nor compelling. Second, by stating that the family was not statutorily eligible for permanent residence because they overstayed the Board of Immigration Appeals' December 17, 2002 Order granting a 30-day voluntary departure period even though the INS has never responded to the extension requests and even though the family timely pursued their Petition for Review rights to the 4th Circuit which only enforced the Board's Order on November 10, 2003. Therefore, today I have introduced a Private Bill that will enable Judith Tanjoh and the Tikum children to obtain permanent residency. I hope my action today will help bring this heartbreaking story to a close.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud the passage of the FY 2006 Science-State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations Bill, which includes funding for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties Joint Gang Suppression and Prevention Initiative in my district. I salute my colleague Mr. Wolf and thank him for his leadership on confronting the issue of gang violence in the Washington metropolitan area. The federal funding approved today builds on the ongoing work of the Joint County Gang Prevention Task Force, which was established by the county executives of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in February 2004. This funding will allow for the establishment of centralized anti-gang units within each county's police force, enabling them to pursue a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence. A cross jurisdictional community-based program, serving youth and families, would be created to provide gang prevention education, mentoring, and outreach services. Critical after-school programs would be funded for areas where there is a high incidence of gang activity. Law enforcement research shows that there are approximately 3,600 gang members in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia and that there are nine major active gangs and more than 100 additional crews region wide. Montgomery County Police estimate that there are 20 to 22 active gangs with approximately 540 to 560 active members and associates. Prince George's County Police estimate that there are 50 crews or gangs in that county with a total of over 400 members. Officials in Prince George's County note a recent increase in the number of Latino gangs and report that the criminal activity of these gangs has expanded to sophisticated car theft rings and prostitution. This funding will help the people of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties fight the growing problem of gang violence and teach young people that gang life is not the road to success, but rather the path to prison. It is important that we provide our law enforcement officials, our teachers, and our community leaders with the support they need as they work to keep our youth safe from gangs and teach them the long term consequences of joining a gang.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend John E. Taylor for his dedicated service to the National Archives. Mr. Taylor has worked for the National Archives since 1946. Throughout those years, Mr. Taylor has been acclaimed by researchers worldwide for his extraordinary grasp of history and ability to locate pertinent documents. Mr. Taylor specializes in World War II documents and records of the Office of Strategic Services. Mr. Taylor's colleagues praise him as one of the most knowledgeable and generous archivists, known for his sound advice and resourceful assistance to authors, scholars and historians. Throughout his illustrious career, Mr. Taylor has been honored by groups all over the world. In 1997 Mr. Taylor was honored by the Japanese Embassy for helping Japanese historians and journalists for the previous 40 years. In 2003 the American Jewish Historical Society awarded Mr. Taylor its first ``Distinguished Archivist Award'' for his lifetime of work as an archivist. He has also received numerous honors from the National Archives itself. The National Archives has a special John E. Taylor Collection of books on espionage and intelligence which largely consists of works with which Mr. Taylor provided critical assistance. Mr. Taylor is truly an invaluable resource. His service at the National Archives is legendary. I applaud his outstanding achievements and dedication to his work, and this landmark achievement of 60 years of service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Sargent Shriver on his 90th birthday today. It is fitting that we take this wonderful occasion to reflect on his life of service to our country. Martin Luther King once said, ``Everyone can be great because everyone can serve.'' Sargent Shriver embodies this ideal. A man of stellar character and tireless energy, Ambassador Shriver has been long recognized as a true humanitarian and a dedicated public servant. Ambassador Shriver received his bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1938. He also attended Yale Law School where he earned an L.L.B. in 1941. Shriver began his lifelong commitment to public service in the United States Navy during World War II. In 1961, Mr. Shriver answered the call of duty again when, at the request of President John F. Kennedy, he established and became Director of the Peace Corps. He helped organize operations around the world, from Africa and Asia to Latin America. Under his steadfast leadership, the Peace Corps provided medical, educational and technical assistance to foreign communities, while giving millions of Americans the opportunity to share our culture and values and democratic way of life with those less fortunate. Shriver's service to our country took a diplomatic turn when he served as our Ambassador to France from 1968 to 1970. Through his commitment to turning his ideals into reality, Sargent Shriver has inspired generations of young people to work to improve the lives of others through public service. As Director of the Peace Corps, Ambassador Shriver once stated, ``I say what our nation needs now is a call to peace and service--peace and service on a scale we have scarcely begun to imagine.'' These words still ring as true today as they did when they were first spoken. While Ambassador Shriver is best known as the Founding Father of the Peace Corps, he has also been instrumental in the creation of many other programs which have the goal of helping Americans to better their lives. Among those programs are Head Start, Job Corps, Legal Services, Upward Bound, Community Action, Foster Grandparents, and the Special Olympics. In 1994, President Clinton recognized Ambassador Shriver's extraordinary commitment to public service by awarding him the nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Sargent Shriver's accomplishments and his undying commitment to humanitarian efforts and I wish him well on his birthday and in the years to come. Happy Birthday, Sargent Shriver. We salute you!

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend John E. Taylor for his dedicated service to the National Archives. Mr. Taylor has worked for the National Archives since 1946. Throughout those years, Mr. Taylor has been acclaimed by researchers worldwide for his extraordinary grasp of history and ability to locate pertinent documents. Mr. Taylor specializes in World War II documents and records of the Office of Strategic Services. Mr. Taylor's colleagues praise him as one of the most knowledgeable and generous archivists, known for his sound advice and resourceful assistance to authors, scholars and historians. Throughout his illustrious career, Mr. Taylor has been honored by groups all over the world. In 1997 Mr. Taylor was honored by the Japanese Embassy for helping Japanese historians and journalists for the previous forty years. In 2003 the American Jewish Historical Society awarded Mr. Taylor its first ``Distinguished Archivist Award'' for his lifetime of work as an archivist. He has also received numerous honors from the National Archives itself. The National Archives has a special John E. Taylor Collection of books on espionage and intelligence which largely consists of works with which Mr. Taylor provided critical assistance. Mr. Taylor is truly an invaluable resource. His service at the National Archives is legendary, and he will be greatly missed as he enters retirement. I applaud Mr. Taylor for his outstanding achievements and dedication to his work and wish him an enjoyable and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly condemn the deplorable remarks made this week by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad and I commend my colleagues, Congressmen Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Henry Hyde (R-IL), for authoring this important resolution--H. Res. 523, Condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad's threats against Israel--and bringing it to the floor of the House of Representatives. The statement by Iran's President that ``Israel must be wiped off the map'' demands the strongest condemnation from the entire international community. Moreover, it is reprehensible that Mr. Ahmandinejad made these statements to a group of students. In an area of the world where violence has led to intense hardship and suffering the Iranian President's statement only promotes more violence. It is a sad day when the leader of Iran would poison the minds of young people rather than inspire them to build a peaceful Middle East.