Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank Charles S. Serio, COL, MSC, USA, Ph.D, Brigade Commander of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS for his tremendous service to our country. On September 7,2005, Colonel Serio marked the end of eight years of service at USUHS, and concluded a 37-year career of Federal service. Colonel Serio was born on August 26, 1946, and graduated from his home-state University of Mississippi with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology, in 1969. He earned his Master Degree in 1973 and completed his Doctoral Degree in Immunology in 1975. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Among his numerous awards and decorations are the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Army Superior Unit Award, the National Defense Service Award, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Colonel Serio has also earned the following badges, which denote operational expertise: Airborne, Air Assault, Expert Field Medical, and German Troop Proficiency Duty, Gold. He was awarded the ``A'' Proficiency Designator in Immunology by the Army Surgeon General, the highest award given in recognition of professional accomplishment by the United States Army Medical Department. He was also selected as a member of the ``Order of the Military Medical Merit,'' which denotes distinguished service as recognized by the senior leadership of the Army Medical Department. Colonel Serio is the author of numerous scientific publications in immunology and radiobiology in both national and international journals. His career includes positions of responsibility such as: the Detachment Commander, 330th General Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee; Clinical Laboratory Officer and Bacteriologist with the 326th Medical Detachment, 801st General Hospital, Chicago, Illinois; Chief of the Immunology Branch, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, Texas; Microbiology Consultant to the Commanding General, 7th MEDCOM; Staff Officer and Manager of Science and Technology, Medical Research and Material Command, Fort Detrick, Maryland; and, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. In June of 1997, Colonel Serio was selected to serve as the 4th Brigade Commander at USUHS. As the Brigade Commander, Colonel Serio was recognized as the senior officer of the University with responsibility for command of over 1,000 members of the USUHS Brigade, representing the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Public Health Service. Colonel Serio served as the senior military advisor to the President of USUHS for 8 years. During his service as the USUHS Brigade Commander, he became an invaluable asset as a role model, teacher and mentor to over 1,500 uniformed medical, nursing, and graduate students. Colonel Serio provided lectures to the USUHS medical and nursing students in pathophysiology, immunology, biological warfare, and military leadership. He created a recognized Brigade command structure and curriculum in support of the USUHS mission, implemented military unique and significant programs and internationally recognized field training exercises, annually coordinated the USUHS graduation ceremonies, monitored the USUHS strategic goal on military leadership development, and annually exceeded the University's goals in the Combined Federal Campaigns. His longstanding role as a soldier, scientist, educator, and leader in both undergraduate and graduate education has supported and ensured medical readiness during more than one global conflict. USUHS is recognized as the most cost-effective and qualified source for the recruitment and development of uniformed officers who will hold significant leadership and operational positions throughout the Military Health System. Colonel Serio can be assured that his influence and leadership have greatly assisted the future patients and command officers who will be served by the uniquely trained USUHS graduates--physicians, advanced practice nurses, and scientists. The University fulfills a critical core requirement for medical readiness in the Department of Defense; and, Colonel Serio has greatly contributed to the preparation of dedicated, career-oriented uniformed officers who will care for those who are sent into harm's way. I take this opportunity to thank COL Charles Serio for his tremendous dedication and love for our Nation and wish him well as he retires to begin his next demanding career as a grandfather to his five grandchildren along with his three daughters, Shanna, Jada and Tara, and his wife, the former Belva L. McCormick.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The Task Force on Mentoring (TFM) of Montgomery County on the occasion of its fourteenth annual conference entitled ``Saving Our Children-- Compassionate Mentoring'', which will be held on the Rockville campus of Johns Hopkins University on Thursday, October 6, 2005. For more than fifteen years, the TFM has been a mainstay of support for at-risk youth in Montgomery County. It has been repeatedly recognized for the high quality mentoring programs it has implemented in partnership with many of our community's schools, civic organizations and, more recently, correctional facilities. Moreover, as if to underscore the spirit guiding its work, the TFM offers all of its recruitment assistance, training expertise and technical support free of charge. Because of the Task Force on Mentoring of Montgomery County--and its legions of trained and dedicated volunteers--more and more of our youth are growing up to become active, positive participants in our community. They are making great plans to lead great lives. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of its fourteenth annual conference, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting the Task Force on Mentoring of Montgomery County and in thanking the TFM for its consistent commitment to the children and youth of Montgomery County, Maryland.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my deepest condolences to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, who lost their lives, their homes, their communities, and their livelihoods. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. I have been very disappointed in what appears to have been a slow federal response to this disaster. In addition, many appeared to have ignored warnings over the years about the potential vulnerabilities and the steps that could be taken to prepare for this situation. It is my hope that we can come together on a bipartisan basis and work to review and assess the adequacy of the early federal, state, and local preparedness. We must also continue to focus on providing immediate assistance to those in need. I am pleased that the Congress convened on an emergency basis to provide more than 10 billion dollars for disaster relief efforts and trust we are providing an additional $52 billion today. In addition, I have been working with federal, state, and local officials to ensure that Maryland does everything it can to support the relief efforts. The State of Maryland has dispatched members of its National Guard and Montgomery County has dispatched search and rescue squad personnel. Other local governments are actively exploring ways that they can help. I am especially proud of the people throughout our community and country's outpouring of support for those whose lives have been shattered by Hurricane Katrina. They have opened their arms, their homes, and their pocketbooks. Mr. Speaker, while the enormity of this tragedy is overwhelming, I am confident that a spirit of determination and generosity will ensure that we will rebuild and endure. Our strength as a nation will be evident in the days to come as communities throughout our country unite to provide assistance to those in need.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Denise Snyder on a lifetime of service to the youngest residents of my district. Ms. Snyder recently retired after 17 years as Director of the C.C. Children's Center in Bethesda, Maryland. During her tenure at the Center, Ms. Snyder guided over 1,500 children through their formative years. She embraced the children and their families, personally guiding them through their challenges and successes. Ms. Snyder ensured that the Center provided children with a nurturing environment that fostered cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development. Ms. Snyder worked tirelessly to ensure that her doors were always open to children who needed the Center. She welcomed children of all races and religions, providing them with an environment where they could feel safe and loved. Her careful planning and outstanding leadership have earned the Center national accreditation from the National Association for Early Childhood Education. Ms. Snyder has earned the trust and affection of her students and the respect and devotion of her staff. Her work sets an example for early childhood educators, and she has my gratitude for her many contributions to the Montgomery County community. Mr. Speaker, there are too few people in this world with a heart as warm or as big as Denise Snyder's, and I am pleased to recognize her for her contributions to her community.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the energy conference report before us. While the reliability standards and efficiency incentives in this legislation are not without merit, the entire package is tragically little more than a case study in missed opportunities and misplaced priorities. First, and most astonishingly, this bill does nothing to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. In failing to make meaningful progress on energy independence, the conferees scrapped a measure designed to reduce our oil consumption by a million barrels a day by 2015 and refused to make long overdue improvements in our corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards for cars. The predictable result will be less security for the Nation and continued pricing pressure at the pump. Second, rather than making robust investments in the renewable and advanced efficiency technologies of the future, this legislation lavishes billions of dollars on the polluting industries of the past. Particularly during this period of record profits, does anyone really believe taxpayers need to be giving oil and gas companies another tax break? The conferees' decision to abandon the renewable portfolio standard called for in the Senate bill is a serious mistake, and I regret that a forward-looking alternative called the New Apollo Energy Project I championed with Representatives Jay Inslee and Rush Holt was blocked from receiving consideration on the House floor earlier this year. Finally, this conference report turns back the clock on decades of hard-fought, bipartisan environmental protection. The Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and National Environmental Protection Act are all undermined, while State authority over siting decisions for liquefied natural gas importation terminals is preempted. Additionally, the legislation abdicates all responsibility for the most looming ecological challenge of our time: climate change. Senate language calling for carbon caps to combat global warming was stripped from the final bill, and an amendment I offered with Representatives Wayne Gilchrest and John Olver to take the modest step of establishing a national greenhouse gas registry was quashed in April by the House Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, this legislation goes further where it shouldn't--and not nearly far enough where it should. It is content to see the world through the rear view mirror of a parked SUV while the rest of the world is flying down the road in hybrids passing us by. At the dawn of the 21st century, the United States deserves an energy policy worthy of its people and of the historic leadership we have always provided on the world stage. This is not that energy policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise as we celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Most Americans take for granted the ability to enter a restaurant, speak on the telephone, or apply for a job without fear of discrimination. But until the passage of the ADA, tens of millions of Americans with disabilities were denied these basic rights. Over the past decade and a half, the ADA has enabled people with disabilities to realize more fully their place in American society. But the promise of the ADA remains unfulfilled. Only about one-third of people with disabilities are employed, and those with disabilities are three times more likely to live in poverty. If we are to honor our commitment to equal rights, we must work tirelessly to open society and the workplace to all Americans. To that end, I sponsored legislation to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and recently introduced the Federal Employees with Disabilities Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what the ADA has accomplished so far. I encourage my colleagues to join me in working to honor its promise for all Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today, after much deliberation, I decided to cast my vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. After careful review, I have concluded that the benefits of CAFTA are likely to flow to a few powerful economic special interests at the expense of working men and women in the United States and Central America. It is my hope that a `no vote' will encourage the President to go back and re-negotiate the labor and environmental provisions of CAFTA so that everyone, not just a few special interests, will experience the rewards of free trade. The Bush Administration offered as one of its reasons for negotiating this agreement that the growing economic prosperity in Central America as a result of CAFTA would pull Central Americans up from poverty to become enthusiastic consumers of American goods. But by not sufficiently addressing the issue of weak labor protections throughout Central America, the Bush Administration neglected an important tool that could help make this dream a reality. According to the Administration, CAFTA adequately addressed labor concerns by requiring that each country enforce its own labor laws. Ordinarily, I would not object to this. Similar language is included in some of the other FTAs I have supported in the past. But what is troubling about CAFTA is that, while Central American countries may indeed have worker protections on the books, they have a dismal record of enforcing them. This became clear to me while researching the human rights records of CAFTA countries. I was disheartened to learn that while the constitutions of each CAFTA country provides for rights of workers, bureaucratic impediments, ineffective legal systems and insufficient resources have precipitated a culture of neglect that has left workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers. In Guatemala, the law prohibits retribution for forming or participating in trade unions. But, enforcement of these provisions is weak. Employers often circumvent the Labor Code or simply ignore judicial pronouncements altogether. In El Salvador, there have been repeated complaints that the government prevents workers from exercising their constitutionally recognized right of association by employing excessive judicial formalities and denying unions legal standing. In Honduras, the Labor Code expressly prohibits retribution by employers for trade union activity and blacklisting--but such violations continue. The Administration's response to objections about the dismal enforcement records of Central American governments is that CAFTA contains penalties to discourage such activities. While CAFTA does contain provisions crafted to encourage enforcement of labor rights, these provisions fall short of the strength needed to reverse years of indifference and systematic neglect. CAFTA's enforcement mechanism centers on a strategy of financial penalties. Each time a party is found guilty of violating a worker's rights, that country is assessed a fine. This approach has been employed in earlier agreements with few objections. But in CAFTA, such an approach is problematic. My principal concern is that only the U.S. has the standing to bring a case against a CAFTA country. NGOs and other international institutions, who are often the most knowledgeable about the labor conditions in these countries, are forbidden from seeking redress on behalf of workers--which means that only the U.S. government will be able to take issue with labor violations under CAFTA. Given our poor history of forcing compliance with labor laws among our trading partners, I am not convinced that this approach will adequately protect Central American workers. Equally troubling is the requirement that countries found to be in violation pay the fine back to themselves instead of to the United States. This hardly seems like a penalty at all. Unfortunately, CAFTA would turn the labor conditions in some Central American countries from bad to worse. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, which currently governs U.S. trade relations with Central America provides for periodic opportunities to reconsider and re-negotiate its provisions--including its labor provisions. That creates a mechanism where, over time, we can press for improved labor conditions. But the labor provisions in CAFTA would preempt the CBI process. Once passed, CAFTA can only be changed if each individual country agrees to the change. Over the years, unions have helped bring scores of Americans into the middle class. Unions helped shield workers from retribution as they sought a fair wage and better benefits for themselves and their families. Given the increased opportunity for trade that CAFTA will bring about, Central American workers deserve the chance to enjoy some of the benefits. The debate on CAFTA has been long and spirited. Along the way, critics have had time to clearly annunciate their objections. The Bush Administration heard and responded to concerns about textiles and even re-opened negotiations on the issue. Why can't the same be done for labor rights? Mr. President, many of the flaws in the agreement with respect to labor rights also apply to its environmental provisions. The enforcement mechanisms are weak. I have therefore concluded that CAFTA is a missed opportunity. Without adequate mechanisms to enforce labor and environmental standards it will trigger a race to the bottom--a race for certain special economic interests to exploit lax labor and environmental protections. The result will be substantial benefits for a few at the expense of many. We can do better. We must do better. Mr. President, Americans and Central Americans deserve a chance to have their concerns about this agreement addressed--please re-negotiate CAFTA.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this. This is a bad bill, Mr. Speaker, for many reasons. I want to focus on one of them, which is that this bill will strip away the consumer protections and the patient protections that exist under State law for our constituents today. I understand that we have 50 States, and in those 50 States many of them have different mandates for what has to be covered and what does not have to be covered, and there is some sense when you are talking about organizations operating across State lines that you would streamline that effort. That is exactly what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and I tried to do when we took an amendment the other day to the Rules Committee. We said, let us look at six patients' rights that have been agreed to on a bipartisan basis by this Congress in previous legislation and which are overwhelmingly agreed to in our States, and let us say with respect to those six rights, you can't take that right away from one of our constituents, one of our patients, one of our consumers if you are an associated health plan. What happened to that amendment? We did not even get to hear it or vote on it in this House. What are we afraid of? What were those six provisions that we wanted to make sure all our constituents, all our consumers, were protected by? The right to an independent external review of coverage decisions. Forty-three States have this rule already. It says if you disagree with your insurance company as to whether or not you are covered, let us not ask the insurance company who is right and who is wrong, let us have an independent individual who can make that decision. Does that make sense? Most of our constituents think they will have that right. If you pass this legislation and if you are in an AHP, you are not going to get it. Second, direct access to obstetric, gynecological, or pediatric services. You do not have to wait in line before you take your child to see the pediatrician. Third, imposition of prudent layperson decision-making standards. If you show up at the hospital, and you have a good faith reason for thinking you are sick, and it turns out you did not have a heart attack, but you went thinking you had one and you had good reason to think so, your insurance company cannot deny you coverage for that visit. You do not have to be the doctor. That is why we have doctors. Use of drug formularies, access to hospital emergency room treatment, 42 States have this requirement; and making sure that we do not restrict the ability of our doctors to give us their opinions, to make sure that those States where they say you cannot have a gag rule, where your physician can tell you, the patient, what he or she thinks is in your best medical interest, they cannot be punished by the insurance company for telling you the truth. These are common-sense provisions, six common-sense provisions. That is what our amendment would have done. It would have made this piece of legislation stronger and protected our constituents. What happened? We did not even allow a vote on that. I would just like to quote from 42 State attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats, who say, ``Consumers rightfully expect their States to protect them from fraud and abuse. Elimination of the State role and replacement with weak Federal oversight is a bad deal for small businesses and for consumers.'' Those are State attorneys general, Republican and Democrat, who, like us, are trying to look out for the consumer interest. Do not pass this bill. If you do, you are going to have a lot of explaining to do to your constituents when they are denied by their insurance companies coverage that they thought they rightfully had.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend one of my constituents, Harriet Henderson, on her outstanding service as the Director of Public Libraries in Montgomery County, Maryland. As Director for the past eight years, Ms. Henderson has helped make the Montgomery County library system the envy of library systems throughout the country. The Montgomery County library system consistently ranks among the nation's top ten, often noted as ``one of the best . . . in the country.'' Working to increase library hours and expand the materials collection, Henderson has demonstrated a profound commitment to improving the quality and accessibility of our region's public libraries. The impact of Ms. Henderson's work is not limited to her role in Montgomery County. A former president of the Public Library Association and the Virginia Library Association, Ms. Henderson has made contributions on a national scale. She has also served in leadership positions with the Urban Libraries Council as well as other organizations. Ms. Henderson will soon assume a new position as Director of the Richmond Public Libraries. I am confident that she will excel in all of her future endeavors and that the Richmond libraries will benefit greatly from her wisdom and experience. I applaud Harriet Henderson and wish her continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend one of my constituents, Harriet Henderson, on her outstanding service as the Director of Public Libraries in Montgomery County, Maryland. As Director for the past eight years, Ms. Henderson has helped make the Montgomery County library system the envy of library systems throughout the country. The Montgomery County library system consistently ranks among the nation's top ten, often noted as ``one of the best...in the country.'' Working to increase library hours and expand the materials collection, Henderson has demonstrated a profound commitment to improving the quality and accessibility of our region's public libraries. The impact of Ms. Henderson's work is not limited to her role in Montgomery County. A former president of the Public Library Association and the Virginia Library Association, Ms. Henderson has made contributions on a national scale. She has also served in leadership positions with the Urban Libraries Council as well as other organizations. Ms. Henderson will soon assume a new position as Director of the Richmond Public Library. I am confident that she will excel in all of her future endeavors and that the Richmond libraries will benefit greatly from her wisdom and experience. I applaud Harriet Henderson and wish her continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my decision to vote against this version of the PATRIOT Act. This has not been an easy decision. Some of the provisions that are being reauthorized 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. Indeed, many amendments to the PATRIOT Act were proposed in both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee to address legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, many of these amendments were either rejected or blocked from coming up for a vote. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is essential that we strengthen 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. I am hopeful that the Senate will address these shortcomings in the House bill so that, at the end of the day, we can enact a balanced bill that protects both our security and the rights and liberties we seek to secure. We can do better. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--to develop a bill of which we can all be proud and which can be a true testament to American patriots and to the Constitution we all seek to uphold and defend.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend one of my constituents, Subhashree Madhavan, and her Rembrandt Project Team at the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Madhavan and her colleagues were recently named among thirty finalists for the 2005 Service to America medals awarded by the Partnership for Public Service. The Service to America award program recognizes career Federal employees for their significant contributions to the Nation. Recipients of the ``Sammies'' are among the best and brightest of our public servants. While we seldom give public recognition to their efforts, they devote their lives and careers to the cause of our national welfare. They are models to the rest of the Federal workforce and inspirations to us all. Since joining the National Cancer Institute Center for Bioinformatics at NIH, Ms. Madhavan has overseen the development of the Rembrandt Project. Rembrandt (REpository for Molecular BRAin Neoplasia DaTa) is a database that brings together data from an NCI clinical study with a vast store of existing data on brain tumors. By bridging the gap between clinical and biological information, Rembrandt will facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients and will assist brain cancer researchers in their search for a cure. Mr. Speaker, I offer my warmest congratulations to Ms. Madhavan and her team.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend the City of Gaithersburg for having recently been ranked seventeenth in the Nation on Money Magazine/CNN Money's list of ``Best Places to Live.'' The list ranked cities according to a number of quality-of-life criteria, accounting for economic, environmental, educational, and cultural factors. Gaithersburg excelled particularly in its access to museums and institutions of higher education, its sound environmental health, and its low elementary student-to-teacher ratio and crime rate. To the 58,000 residents of Gaithersburg, this commendation comes as no surprise. Gaithersburg is a strong and vibrant community, blessed with an active citizenry and a devoted civic leadership in Mayor Sidney Katz, City Manager David Humpton, and its City Council members. The area has also benefited from the recent revitalization of the Olde Towne residential and commercial district, an endeavor which has highlighted the benefits of thoughtful community planning and enhanced access to cultural and recreational activities. I am confident that Gaithersburg will continue to flourish in the coming years. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the people of the City of Gaithersburg in the House of Representatives, and I offer them my warmest congratulations on this honor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate to one of my constituents, Kathryn Fox, who recently celebrated her 102nd birthday. Mrs. Fox was born on July 16, 1903 in the small town of Middleport, Ohio. After attending the University of Ohio, she married Richard K. Fox, Sr. The two lived in St. Louis for over three decades, as Mr. Fox enjoyed a long career teaching high school mathematics. Among Mrs. Fox's favorite pastimes is travel. She and her husband made several trips to Europe and traveled extensively in the American West. Mrs. Fox has continued to visit the Tucson home of her son, Ambassador Richard Fox, Jr., in recent years. In her active retirement, Mrs. Fox enjoys needlepoint and attends church each Sunday. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mrs. Fox on her birthday and wish her the best of health and much continued happiness in the future.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend Montgomery County for its commitment to recycling. The Montgomery County Recycling Center received the 2005 Material Recovery Facility of the Year Award. This is the second time in 5 years that Montgomery County has received this award from the Solid Waste Processing Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The criteria needed to receive this award include the facility's success in reaching its goals, environmental performance and safety, and the facility's role in solid waste processing and integrated waste management. The plant is estimated to generate about $3,000,000 in revenue for fiscal year 2005. In addition, the plant underwent a processing system equipment overhaul in the summer of 2002 which increased its efficiency. Recycling is a vital part of our effort to preserve our environment for future generations. I am very proud of Montgomery County's success in this area and I applaud the community leaders and citizens for their dedication to recycling.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend one of my constituents, Thomas Carr, recipient of a fellowship to attend Harvard University's Senior Executives in State and Local Government Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. As Chief of Montgomery County (MD) Fire and Rescue Service, Mr. Carr works to protect the community and educate the residents on safety precautions and fire prevention. His efforts were recognized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a primary supporter of the fellowship. Since 1896, the Association has been a leader promoting fire, electrical, building, and life safety awareness. Mr. Carr, likewise, has been a leader in promoting fire, electrical, building, and life safety awareness to the citizens of our community. I applaud Thomas Carr and wish him continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise to congratulate a high school in my District, Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, Maryland, for winning the 2005 Washington Area ``It's Academic'' television quiz show Superbowl. Walter Johnson High School is being recognized for its win in the Superbowl match, which featured regional champions Robert E. Lee High School from Central Virginia and Centennial High School from Baltimore. The school's victory in the ``It's Academic'' program, which is an extracurricular activity at 81 schools across the region, demonstrates the benefits of academic competition in our schools. The hard work and commitment to academic excellence demonstrated by the students is commendable. In the midst of frequent critiques of our national education system, successes like this one highlight the great achievements of talented, intelligent young people in our schools. As recognition for this accomplishment, the school's ``It's Academic'' team received a trophy, which will be displayed for the next year, and academic scholarship money for the school. The Superbowl match featured strong performances by seniors Zach Hommer and James Coan and juniors Alex Price and Adam Newman. I commend Walter Johnson High School for its championship win and wish the ``It's Academic'' team continued success in future years.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is not about getting rid of the competitive sourcing program. There always has been competitive sourcing in the government, and there will continue to be. The issue is what rules apply. I would suggest to my colleagues that the defense appropriations bill rider that was attached said when you have these competitions, you should at least demonstrate that the taxpayers would be saved some money. A minimum of at least 10 percent of the funds was a good idea. That was required by this House. That is not required by the current A- 76 process. We should make that. That should not just apply to the Defense Department that we get a good deal for the taxpayer. That should apply. The provision of health benefits, let us do what the House has already done two times, which is adopt this exact language. We did it last year on this bill. We did it the year before. I urge my colleagues to do it again this year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would just pose the question to the subcommittee chairman, I thank him for those remarks, but if the current A-76 contracting out process works so well, if that is the ideal that we want to have, why has the Appropriations Committee, on five different bills that it has reported out, changed those rules with respect to several agencies? With the Interior appropriations bill there was a rider that came out that passed the House that limited the amount of money that may be used for privatization review by the Department of the Interior and for the Forest Service specifically. On the Homeland Security appropriations bill, you prevented the Department of the Interior from reviewing for privatization work performed by three different categories of employees who serve on the front lines of the war against terrorism. On the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee in this House included provisions that prevented the Department of Agriculture from reviewing for privatization any employees involved in rural development or farm loan programs. So I would just say to my colleagues, if the existing system works so well, why has the Committee on Appropriations in this House this year already voted to change it in so many ways? Let us have a uniform policy that applies equally across Federal agencies.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the process that we now have in place in the Federal Government for contracting out work that is performed by Federal employees around the country, in other words, what process is in place for privatizing certain Federal Government jobs. That process, which is known by the Office of Management and Budget, A- 76 process, is a broken process. In fact, both Federal Government employees and private contractors have serious legitimate concerns and complaints about the existing competitive sourcing process. This amendment would, in fact, encourage OMB to go back to the drawing board and develop a competitive sourcing process that addresses everybody's concerns. And it is an amendment that is identical, word for word, to an amendment that has passed the House on this appropriations bill in the last 2 years. And we have passed this bill for the past 2 years for a very simple reason. We recognize that the existing contracting out process is unfair and that it needs to be fixed. And that has not changed from last year to this year. In fact, already this year the Appropriations Committee and this House have recognized the fact that the existing contracting out process is broken because we have passed a number of bills to change that on an ad hoc basis. For example, the Defense appropriations bill, which has already passed this House, changed the A-76 contracting out rules for Department of Defense Federal employees in a number of ways. It insured, first of all, that Federal employees of the Department of Defense would always have the opportunity to compete to keep their jobs through forming what is known as the most efficient organization. The Defense appropriations bill also required that when a private contractor is trying to take over work it demonstrates that it can provide some minimal level of savings to the taxpayer. After all, that is what competition should be about. That is something the GAO has recommended, and it is something the Appropriations Committee put in the Defense appropriations bill but it is not part of the normal contracting out process. The Defense appropriation bill also prevents private contractors from gaining an advantage by providing less health benefits to their employees. We as a Federal Government should be setting an example to the public, not trying to encourage people to dump health coverage for their employees. And so the appropriations for defense did that. There are also things we did with respect to the authorization bill for the Defense Department that changed the contracting out rules. For example, we made sure that during the appeals process, that the appeals rights of Federal employees would be the same as appeal rights for private contractors. That seems to make sense. That is only fair. In fact, if you look at different appropriations bills that have come out, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Interior appropriations bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, all of those bills had changes to this contracting out process. So the question arises if the Appropriations Committee itself has changed the contracting out rules in all these other bills, does it not make sense to ask the Office of Management and Budget to go back and get it right, come up with a uniform policy that applies governmentwide, rather than have five different tests in different appropriations bills. That is what this amendment is all about. It does not get rid of the competitive sourcing rules. It would say to OMB, go back to the rules that were in place before May 2003 until you fashion a new set of rules that make sense for everybody. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Connecticut in offering this amendment to ensure the fair treatment of the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, it was just back in 1998 that, in response to overly aggressive IRS collection tactics, the Congress passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. That act specifically prevented IRS agents and their supervisors from being evaluated based on how much taxes they collected. They couldn't get a bonus based on how much tax they collected. The reason was pretty simple. We wanted to make sure that the IRS agents had an objective approach, that they weren't harassing taxpayers for their own personal benefit. That brings us to why we are offering this amendment here today. The provision that was included last year in the FSC corporate tax bill reversed that policy. In fact, even worse, it said that private collection agencies could go out and collect these taxes and that they would get a 25 percent bonus if they collected those taxes. In other words, they were on a commission, based on how much they collected, which creates exactly the wrong incentive, an incentive that we tried to address back in 1998 when we passed that earlier legislation. Furthermore, it hurts the American taxpayer in another way. Right now, when the IRS agent goes out and collects taxes, 100 percent of those taxes go to the public Treasury to be spent on education and health care and other things that this Congress may decide to invest in for the American people. Under the existing special interest provision that got stuck into the law last year, 25 percent of those moneys are now going to go, not to the Federal Treasury for public purposes, but they are going to be pocketed by these private bounty hunters, essentially, debt collectors who are out there, who have an incentive to be overly aggressive with the taxpayer, have an incentive not to look at the issue fairly; and at the end of the day, they pocket 25 percent instead of those funds going to the benefit of the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the McGovern, McCollum and Moore Amendment to the FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that will reduce counter-narcotics and military funding to Colombia by $100 million. The U.S./Colombia campaign against drugs and terrorism is not working. Not only have efforts to reduce the production of cocaine in Colombia not been effective, funds from the program that should have been used to fight terrorism are instead being used by paramilitary groups to commit human rights abuses. The U.S. has invested billions of dollars into Plan Colombia and successive programs since passing the FY 2000 budget. The Bush administration wants to continue this misguided policy with a request for $734 million in the FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations request for the Andean Counter-drug Initiative. One of the main objectives of Plan Colombia has been to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. At the center of this effort has been the aerial spraying of herbicides on Colombia's coca crops. But U.S. and UN reports confirm that aerial spraying has not produced any appreciable reduction in coca production. In fact, cocaine production in Colombia may even have increased. According to the UN, 62 percent of Colombian coca fields detected in 2004 were new! The lack of any appreciable reduction in production combined with an increase in production in countries such as Bolivia and Peru has actually led to an increase of supply on the global market and a decrease in the cost of cocaine in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I am also troubled by reports in the news that recently the Colombian Congress, while approving a law governing the disarmament of its country's death squads, at the same time, granted generous concessions to paramilitary commanders accused of human rights abuses. I am concerned that U.S. assistance is being used by Colombian security forces that operate in conjunction with paramilitary forces targeting social leaders with threats, disappearance, and execution. The U.S. should not provide assistance to governments that refuse to hold perpetrators accountable for human rights abuses. Mr. Chairman, until I am convinced that the funds to Colombia are fixing the problem instead of making it worse, I cannot support full funding for aid to Colombia. That is why I support the McGovern, McCollum, Moore Amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.