Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, our goal must be to honor the wishes of Theresa Schiavo regarding this difficult end-of-life decision. We are a nation of laws. That is what distinguishes our country from so many others. In this case, the courts of the State of Florida have thoroughly reviewed the facts of this case and weighed the evidence about what Theresa Schiavo would want. They have concluded that Theresa Schiavo, through her words and deeds before her accident, would not want to be kept artificially alive in a persistent vegetative state. The Congress should not now substitute its judgment for that of Theresa Schiavo and the Florida courts. Who are we to impose our own personal preferences in this case? We should not be playing doctor, judge, and jury.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to draw the attention of the House to a significant event in civil rights history which took place in this very chamber on March 15, forty years ago. It was on that evening, that President Lyndon Johnson addressed a joint session of the Congress to seek the enactment of the 1965 voting rights bill he was about to submit. It was the first time in nineteen years that a president had addressed a joint session to request domestic legislation. Tumultuous events taking place in Selma, Alabama, had influenced the timing of the President's request. In one of the most stirring appeals of his Presidency, Johnson said: At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord . . . So it was last week in Selma, Alabama . . . What happened at Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every state and section of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. . . . Their cause must be our cause, too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall--overcome! Those exalted words drawn from the freedom hymn of the civil rights movement, spoken by the President of the United States, to the resounding ovation of the Congress, carried by television around the nation and around the world, marked the crossing of a watershed of civil rights history. It was a clear affirmation that the heart and soul of American leadership was at last committed to the fight for unqualified freedom for all Americans. Among those seated in the Presidential box that evening of the joint session was LeRoy Collins, the former Governor of Florida, who, with his wife, had been guests of the President and Mrs. Johnson at dinner that evening. This distinction was the President's way of acknowledging the special service rendered by Collins and the little known Federal agency he headed--the Community Relations Service--which had played an important behind-the-scenes role in Selma, helping to advance the civil rights goals of the protesters, and, at the same time, working to restrain the violence of resistance. Just nine months earlier Congress had created the Community Relations Service as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title Ten of that act called into being a special agency composed of civil rights peace- makers--mediators who would go into troubled communities to conciliate racial conflict and promote voluntary compliance with civil rights laws. Such legislation had first been proposed by Senator Lyndon Johnson seven years earlier. In the years since Selma, the Community Relation Service, ``CRS'', has helped every major city and thousands of smaller communities, to resolve tens of thousands of confrontations involving school desegregation, police-minority relations, church burnings, urban violence and countless acts and allegations of racial and ethnic discrimination. Nevertheless, because this division of the Department of Justice relies on quiet persuasion and skillful negotiation it takes special effort to avoid the limelight. As a result the American public has had little opportunity to know of its extraordinary achievements. In effect, the work of the Community Relations Service has been a missing chapter in America's civil rights history. I am pleased to report, however, that this oversight has at last been rectified thanks to the efforts of Bertram Levine, a long-time resident of my district, whose history of the Community Relations Service has just been published by the University of Missouri Press. The book is entitled, Resolving Racial Conflict: The Community Relations Service and Civil Rights (1964-1989). [From the 2004 Fall-Winter Catalogue of the University of Missouri Press] Resolving Racial Conflict: The Community Relations Service and Civil Rights (1964-1989) (By Bertram Levine) In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, Congress wisely created an agency based in the U.S. Department of Justice to help forestall or resolve racial or ethnic disputes evolving from the act. Mandated by law and by its own methodology to shun publicity, the Community Relations Service developed self-effacement to a fine art. Thus the accomplishments, as well as the shortcomings, of this federal venture into conflict resolution are barely known in official Washington, and even less so by the American public. This first written history of the Community Relations Service uses the experiences of the men and women who sought to resolve the most volatile issues of the day to tell the fascinating story of this unfamiliar agency. This multiracial cadre of conciliation and mediation specialists worked behind the scenes in more than 20,000 confrontations involving racial and ethnic minorities. From Selma to Montgomery, at the encampment of the Poor Peoples' Campaign in Resurrection City, to the urban riots of the sixties, seventies, and eighties, from the school desegregation battles north and south, at the siege of Wounded Knee, and during the Texas Gulf Coast fishing wars between Southeast Asian refugees and Anglos, these federal peacemakers lessened the atmosphere of racial violence in every major U.S. city and thousands of small towns. These confrontations ranged from disputes that attracted worldwide attention to the everyday affronts, assaults, and upheavals that marked the nation's adjustment to wider power sharing within an increasingly diverse population. While Resolving Racial Conflict examines some of the celebrated breakthroughs that made change possible, it also delves deeply into the countless behind-the-scenes local efforts that converted possibility to reality. Among the many themes in this book that provide new perspective for understanding racial conflict in America are the effects of protest and conflict in engineering social change; the variety of civil rights views and experiences of African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics; the role of police in minority relations; and the development and refinement of techniques for community conflict resolution from seat-of-the-pants intervention to sophisticated professional practice. Resolving Racial Conflict will appeal to students of civil rights and American history in both the general and academic communities, as well as students of alternative dispute resolution and peace and conflict studies.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 67, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend two of my constituents, Cathy Fink & Marcy Marxer. For the second year in a row Fink and Marxer, residents of Kensington, Maryland, won a GRAMMY for Best Musical Album for Children. Their winning album is entitled ``cELLAbration: A Tribute to Ella Jenkins.'' The album celebrates the music of ElIa Jenkins, ``The First Lady of Children's Music'' and the winner of the 2004 GRAMMY Lifetime Achievement Award. The project was a gift to Ella Jenkins in honor of her 80th birthday. Fink and Marxer won their first GRAMMY last year for ``Bon Appetit! Musical Food Fun,'' and every album they have released since 1997 has been nominated for this prestigious honor. As a Member of Congress, I have worked to address the need for broad support for music education and to assure that every child has access to the benefits of active participation in music. I believe that music education is imperative to our children's growth and well-being. During their 21-year musical career, Fink and Marxer have inspired children with their gift of music. I applaud Cathy Fink and Marcy Marxer and wish them continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the following article, which I submit for the Record, written by my constituent, Richard Gilmore. Mr. Gilmore is the President and CEO of the GIC Group. The GIC Group combines experience and strength in research, analysis, and marketing with financial services and asset management. It offers this expertise to the agribusiness and biotechnology industries to help businesses gain access to global and domestic markets, to add value to current agribusiness activities, and to identify new markets. Upon leaving the Bush Administration, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson stated that protecting the safety of the American food supply should be a top priority. Mr. Gilmore's article addresses that issue. 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. U.S. Food Safety Under Siege? (By Richard Gilmore) When it comes to the prospect of an agro-terrorist attack-- the use of biological agents against crops, livestock, poultry and fish--US agriculture has rolled out the welcome mat. Integration and consolidation in the industry widen the potential impact of any single attack. Internationalization of the food chain offers limitless possibilities for human consumption contagions, as well as economic and political instabilities. To combat and anticipate potential attacks to the US food chain, greater effort should be placed on designing new disease-resistant varieties of plants and livestock on the basis of genomic information. Stricter regulations and enforcement capabilities should be introduced not only at our borders but at the point of origin where food is grown, procured for processed for domestic consumption within the United States. At the same time, the United States must develop a comprehensive preparedness and prevention strategy of international proportions in close coordination with our trading partners and the private sector. changes in food production and regulation The US strategy of protection for the food system, as mapped out in the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/ HSPD-9 of January 30, 2004, presupposes that in striving to protect production, processing, food storage and delivery systems within US territory, a credible line of defense will be created to protect the food chain and encourage a thriving agricultural economy. In fact, US agriculture has undergone dramatic change. For crops, `farm to fork' no longer is confined to a regionally based agricultural system, but now encompasses a highly integrated and consolidated global undertaking. For livestock, `hoof to home' now takes on a new meaning that includes a high concentration of production, specialization of calf operations, long distance shipping and massive feedlots averaging thousands of head marketed per facility, for both domestic and international consumption. These commercial developments have resulted in previously unimaginable production and handling efficiencies in domestic and export markets. In 2001, over 70% of processed food in the United States was purchased from other countries, representing almost 30% of final gross product. Fifteen of the top 25 food and beverage companies in the global market are US owned, accounting for about 10% of the global market. US multinational companies account for roughly 6.5%. With greater consolidation on a global scale, interaffiliate trades account for an increasing portion of the value of the food chain. Like other nations, the United States is moving from self-sufficiency to an increasing dependence on other countries for its food supply. At the same time, the US regulatory infrastructure for food safety is still a work in progress and is hobbled by overdependence on the private sector and underdependence on international cooperation. Whether it is a matter of detection, surveillance or information flow, the US government is currently dependent on the private sector for cooperation and support. To share information, government and industry have established the Food and Agriculture Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC; Washington, DC, USA), which includes key industry association representatives, especially from the processed food and feed sectors. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 sets up tracking mechanisms whose effectiveness depends on industry self-reporting. New food import regulations issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; Rockville, MD, USA) now require prior notification of eight hours for goods arriving by ship, four hours by rail or air and two hours by road. This dependence on the private sector is burdensome for companies and both insufficient and unreliable for ensuring the public's food safety concerns. Current regulations have evolved since last December, after a reality check of the US government's enforcement capabilities along with industry's feedback and support. The initial regulations failed on both counts and the prospects for the latest regulations remain uncertain. FDA and the Customs & Border Protection Agency (Washington, DC, USA) still have not adequately funded the enforcement infrastructure nor trained personnel to ensure statistically random, uniform inspections under the new prenotification time frames. Industry is called upon to fill the breach but is still relatively unprepared, with insufficient esource commitment to comply fully with the latest regulations. There remains a remarkable lack of consultation, joint surveillance and shared research with trading partners worldwide. Whether grits or pasta, the US diet still thrives on an international food supply chain. Similarly, food protection and terrorist prevention have to be internationalized, particularly given the advances that continental-wide Europe and Japan have achieved in this regard. the threats Although no precedent exists for an agroterrorist attack on the food chain, the dire consequences of natural outbreaks provide a glimpse of the potential damage that could be wrought. The scale of the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in Taiwan in 1997 and in the UK in 2001 or the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2002 was more devastating than previous epidemics because of the size and structure of modern agricultural production. Taiwan was forced to slaughter more than 8 million pigs and suspend its exports. In the United Kingdom, 4.2 million animals were destroyed in 2001 and 2002, with devastating economic consequences. The cost to Taiwan, a major supplier to Japan, was estimated to be over $20 billion. In the United Kingdom, direct compensation payments alone amounted to approximately $9.6 billion. Because of two major outbreaks of BSE, the United Kingdom slaughtered approximately 5.8 million head of cattle (30 months or older), with an impact of up to $8 billion for the 2000-2001 occurrence alone. The 2003 Dutch outbreak of H7N7, a very pathogenic strain of avian influenza virus, resulted in the necessary culling of over 28 million birds out of a total of 100 million. These numbers pale in comparison to the estimates for a terrorist-induced pathogen release at the heart of the international food chain. The range is astonishing, from almost $7 billion due to a contagion of Asiatic citrus canker on Florida's citrus fruit alone to $27 billion in trade losses for FMD. An array of pathogens could be introduced easily and effectively with assurance of widespread health, economic and political impacts. For livestock, the prime candidates are FMD and African swine fever (ASF). FMD is particularly attractive from a terrorist standpoint because it is a highly contagious viral infection with a morbidity rate of 100% in cattle. ASF is equally effective. Next on the list are the zoonotic diseases, which offer a different strategy: using animals to infect humans. Brucellosis, though not fatal, results in chronic disease; some paramyxoviruses can be passed through direct contact with animals and feature a mortality rate in humans of 36%; certain arboviruses, such as Japanese encephalitis virus, which is spread by insect vectors, and cutaneous forms of anthrax could be readily introduced in the United States. Animal hides, an import item to the US, are a common carrier of anthrax spores that can be readily inhaled and prove fatal for humans. When it comes to crop pathogens, the list is equally long and ominous: stem rust for cereals and wheat, southern corn leaf blight, rice blast, potato blight, citrus canker and several nonspecific plant pathogens. Although not transmittable to humans, these pathogens would cut a wide and devastating swath in crop production. It takes relatively few dollars and little imagination to introduce these deadly pathogens. Just like a crop duster or even hand spray pumps, aerosol would be an effective means to introduce the crop pathogen of choice on plants. A terrorist could also rely on cross border winds or water systems to carry a harmful pathogen from another country into the United States. For animals, the options could be somewhat more imaginative, such as dusting a turkey's feathers with a pathogen agent and then filling small bomblets with the feathers to explode over a targeted area, mushrooming contamination as the feathers drift with the wind to such likely targets as a high density avian population. Economic and political impact Any agro-terrorist attack on the food chain would create marked economic instability and losses due to dislocational, trade and health effects. Every bushel of wheat, corn or soybeans (all staple food and feed items) in addition to beef carcasses and pork bellies, has a futures contract written in Chicago and on other exchanges in Europe, Asia and Latin America. These contracts are all written on margin positions, meaning that the financial losses on unfulfilled contracts would be a multiple of the contract itself. Apart from stocks, losses could be incurred as a result of the following: loss of business for freight-forwarding companies, cancellations of ocean freight, rail and truck hauls; insurance claims on cargoes; and abrogation of contracts up and down the food chain. With only a partial and untested `Bioshield' system in place, one likely scenario is that US politicians would adopt a unilateral response to what is an international problem in the face of a bioterrorist attack. Whether it's cross-border winds or the globalization of our food chain, the fact remains that much of our own vulnerability rests with imported pathogens. The US cannot seal off its territory from these pathogens. By attempting to do so, the government would make matters worse in the absence of uniform international security and surveillance systems. The appropriate counter-terrorist response requires a global security system for sharing research, findings and coordinating strategies with trading partners where the United States sources and sells much of its food. Present policies risk the kind of economic repercussions experienced with Japan in the aftermath of the three-day soybean embargo imposed by the United States in 1973, which became a major shoku in Japan's economic history. Concern over food security, rooted in the soybean embargo, inspired the first and ultimate line of defense in Japan's resistance to liberalizing international trade rules for the agricultural sector. Counterattacks The first priority to combat these threats is to invest in the creation of pathogen-resistant crops through genetic engineering. The National Plant Genome Initiative (Washington, DC, USA) is an international collaboration between academia and the private sector to build a plant genome research infrastructure targeted at sequencing model plant species and therefore identifying genes associated with disease resistance. Together with information concerning large-animal genomes--the cattle genome is anticipated soon-- genomic information can be applied to develop new strains of plants and livestock resistant to animal and plant pathogens likely to be used by terrorists. The US Department of Agriculture's (Washington, DC, USA) newly sponsored research centers and other joint government and private sector initiatives inside and outside the United States could also contribute to the search for resistant strains of livestock. In addition, short-term virus testing and monitoring measures can be adopted to address the problem of increased susceptibility of livestock to disease due to changes in cattle feeding and meatpacking. The discovery earlier in 2004 of a BSE-infected Holstein cow in the United States demonstrated that the monitoring and surveillance system in place is insufficient for rapid detection purposes. There is also an immediate need for a stronger set of regulations that feature comprehensive coordination of research, detection and surveillance on both national and international fronts. Private industry partners in this undertaking must be treated equitably and fairly with a greater effort to broaden industry representation. The easiest step that can be taken to strengthen US defenses is to initiate and fund an intensive personnel training program to meet CBPA (Customs and Border Protection Agency) and FDA's ambitious program benchmarks for field operations, including port inspections, staffing and personal training, and industry registrations. We still lack uniform and consistent enforcement standards for industry and government agencies. Although that is the 15-year goal of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) run by the US Customs, nothing in place can accommodate different information and reporting systems in both the government and the private sector. Longer term measures should include accelerated research programs and an integration and internationalization of policy planning and enforcement. Although the target is to create a practical system of defense for the US food chain, new endeavors to foil terrorists also can result in a broader international system of preparedness. Lifting the siege is the first step.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time. First, let me clarify what this amendment is not about. This amendment is not about whether faith-based organizations do a terrific job in our communities and around the world in providing services. They do, and they are doing that every day. Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, and a whole variety of Protestant denominations currently receive Federal dollars to provide services in our community and around the world. Indeed, many of them receive money today to provide job training services, and they do a good job. And guess what, today they are doing it under current law which says when they receive those Federal tax dollars, they may not discriminate in who they hire based on religion, and not one of those organizations has come to me and said we could do a better job in providing job training services if only you would let us discriminate based on religion. That is what this is all about. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not say in any way that religious organizations can take taxpayer dollars and then discriminate in their hiring based on religion when they are providing services based on those dollars. The issue is very simple. Taxes are paid by Christians, by Jews, by Muslims, by people of all denominations. We are now using those resources to provide to faith-based organizations, and what the bill would allow people to do is to say to somebody who is coming to apply for a job to provide job training services, you know what, we know you are qualified, we know you have a great education, know you can do a good job in providing job training services, but you are the wrong religion. We do not want you because you are Christian, we do not want you because you are Jewish, we do not want you because you are the wrong religion. That is a terrible message to be sending to people throughout this country. In fact, it is a great irony that in a bill that is designed to provide job training to help more people get jobs, we would put in a provision that would deny someone an opportunity to get a job providing job training based on their religion. I urge my colleagues to stick with the current law, because what the underlying bill does is eliminate current law and give a green light that allows people to discriminate based on religion, a terrible message to send. Let us not do it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend one of my constituents, Babette Wise, on her dedication to substance abuse treatment and prevention in the Washington, DC, area for nearly a quarter of a century. As a licensed therapist and director of Georgetown University Hospital's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clinic, Wise has worked with individuals, families, and communities struggling with addiction to alcohol and other drugs. She has helped many people throughout the Washington region transform their lives by providing quality treatment and education. Her treatment philosophy is based on the acknowledgement that addiction is a disease and that abstinence is the best way to manage the condition. Wise treats her patients with respect and provides a safe place for them to heal. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Addiction, Treatment and Recovery, I have gained a greater awareness and respect for the problems associated with addiction, and I am working to promote solutions to these problems. I believe that information, education, and awareness about chemical addiction, as well as access to treatment are the keys to combating this horrific disease. I applaud Babette Wise 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, Babette Wise, on her dedication to substance abuse treatment and prevention in the Washington, D.C. area for nearly a quarter of a century. As a licensed therapist and director of Georgetown University Hospital's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clinic, Wise has worked with individuals, families, and communities struggling with addiction to alcohol and other drugs. She has helped many people throughout the Washington region transform their lives by providing quality treatment and education. Her treatment philosophy is based on the acknowledgement that addiction is a disease and that abstinence is the best way to manage the condition. Wise treats her patients with respect and provides a safe place for them to heal. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Addiction, Treatment and Recovery, I have gained a greater awareness and respect for the problems associated with addiction, and I am working to promote solutions to these problems. I believe that information, education, and awareness about chemical addiction, as well as access to treatment are the keys to combating this horrific disease. I applaud Babette Wise and wish her continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the following article, written by my constituent, Richard Gilmore. Mr. Gilmore is the President and CEO of the GIC Group. The GIC Group combines experience and strength in research, analysis, and marketing with financial services and asset management. They are able to offer this expertise to the agribusiness and biotechnology industries to gain access to global and domestic markets, to add value to current agribusiness activities, and to identify new markets. This article is not necessarily a reflection of my views. US Food Safety Under Siege? (By Richard Gilmore) When it comes to the prospect of an agro-terrorist attack-- the use of biological agents against crops, livestock, poultry and fish--US agriculture has rolled out the welcome mat. Integration and consolidation in the industry widen the potential impact of any single attack. Internationalization of the food chain offers limitless possibilities for human consumption contagions, as well as economic and political instabilities. To combat and anticipate potential attacks to the US food chain, greater effort should be placed on designing new disease-resistant varieties of plants and livestock on the basis of genomic information. Stricter regulations and enforcement capabilities should be introduced not only at our borders but at the point of origin where food is grown, procured or processed for domestic consumption within the United States. At the same time, the United States must develop a comprehensive preparedness and prevention strategy of international proportions in close coordination with our trading partners and the private sector. changes in food production and regulation The US strategy of protection for the food system, as mapped out in the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/ HSPD-9 of January 30, 2004, presupposes that in striving to protect production, processing, food storage and delivery systems within US territory, a credible line of defense will be created to protect the food chain and encourage a thriving agricultural economy. In fact, US agriculture has undergone dramatic change. For crops, `farm to fork' no longer is confined to a regionally based agricultural system, but now encompasses a highly integrated and consolidated global undertaking. For livestock, `hoof to home' now takes on a new meaning that includes a high concentration of production, specialization of calf operations, long distance shipping and massive feedlots averaging thousands of head marketed per facility, for both domestic and international consumption. These commercial developments have resulted in previously unimaginable production and handling efficiencies in domestic and export markets. In 2001, over 70% of processed food in the United States was purchased from other countries, representing almost 30% of final gross product. Fifteen of the top 25 food and beverage companies in the global market are US owned, accounting for about 10% of the global market. US multinational companies account for roughly 6.5%. With greater consolidation on a global scale, interaffiliate trades account for an increasing portion of the value of the food chain. Like other nations, the United States is moving from self-sufficiency to an increasing dependence on other countries for its food supply. At the same time, the US regulatory infrastructure for food safety is still a work in progress and is hobbled by overdependence on the private sector and underdependence on international cooperation. Whether it is a matter of detection, surveillance or information flow, the US government is currently dependent on the private sector for cooperation and support. To share information, government and industry have established the Food and Agriculture Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC; Washington, DC, USA), which includes key industry association representatives, especially from the processed food and feed sectors. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 sets up tracking mechanisms whose effectiveness depends on industry self-reporting. New food import regulations issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; Rockville, MD, USA) now require prior notification of eight hours for goods arriving by ship, four hours by rail or air and two hours by road. This dependence on the private sector is burdensome for companies and both insufficient and unreliable for ensuring the public's food safety concerns. Current regulations have evolved since last December, after a reality check of the US government's enforcement capabilities along with industry's feedback and support. The initial regulations failed on both counts and the prospects for the latest regulations remain uncertain. FDA and the Customs & Border Protection Agency (Washington, DC, USA) still have not adequately funded the enforcement infrastructure nor trained personnel to ensure statistically random, uniform inspections under the new prenotification time frames. Industry is called upon to fill the breach but is still relatively unprepared, with insufficient resource commitment to comply fully with the latest regulations. There remains a remarkable lack of consultation, joint surveillance and shared research with trading partners worldwide. Whether grits or pasta, the US diet still thrives on an international food supply chain. Similarly, food protection and terrorist prevention have to be internationalized, particularly given the advances that continental-wide Europe and Japan have achieved in this regard. the threats Although no precedent exists for an agro-terrorist attack on the food chain, the dire consequences of natural outbreaks provide a glimpse of the potential damage that could be wrought. The scale of the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in Taiwan in 1997 and in the UK in 2001 or the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2002 was more devastating than previous epidemics because of the size and structure of modern agricultural production. Taiwan was forced to slaughter more than 8 million pigs and suspend its exports. In the United Kingdom, 4.2 million animals were destroyed in 2001 and 2002, with devastating economic consequences. The cost to Taiwan, a major supplier to Japan, was estimated to be over $20 billion. In the United Kingdom, direct compensation payments alone amounted to approximately $9.6 billion. Because of two major outbreaks of BSE, the United Kingdom slaughtered approximately 5.8 million head of cattle (30 months or older), with an impact of up to $8 billion for the 2000-2001 occurrence alone. The 2003 Dutch outbreak of H7N7, a very pathogenic strain of avian influenza virus, resulted in the necessary culling of over 28 million birds out of a total of 100 million. These numbers pale in comparison to the estimates for a terrorist-induced pathogen release at the heart of the international food chain. The range is astonishing, from almost $7 billion due to a contagion of Asiatic citrus canker on Florida's citrus fruit alone to $27 billion in trade losses for FMD. An array of pathogens could be introduced easily and effectively with assurance of widespread health, economic and political impacts. For livestock, the prime candidates are FMD and African swine fever (ASF). FMD is particularly attractive from a terrorist standpoint because it is a highly contagious viral infection with a morbidity rate of 100% in cattle. ASF is equally effective. Next on the list are the zoonotic diseases, which offer a different strategy: using animals to infect humans. Brucellosis, though not fatal, results in chronic disease; some paramyxoviruses can be passed through direct contact with animals and feature a mortality rate in humans of 36%; certain arboviruses, such as Japanese encephalitis virus, which is spread by insect vectors, and cutaneous forms of anthrax could be readily introduced in the United States. Animal hides, an import item to the US, are a common carrier anthrax spores that can be readily inhaled and prove fatal for humans. When it comes to crop pathogens, the list is equally long and ominous: stem rust for cereals and wheat, southern corn leaf blight, rice blast, potato blight, citrus canker and several nonspecific plant pathogens. Although not transmittable to humans, these pathogens would cut a wide and devastating swathe in crop production. It takes relatively few dollars and little imagination to introduce these deadly pathogens. Just like a crop duster or even hand spray pumps, aerosol would be an effective means to introduce the crop pathogen of choice on plants. A terrorist could also rely on cross border winds or water systems to carry a harmful pathogen from another country into the United States. For animals, the options could be somewhat more imaginative, such as dusting a turkey's feathers with a pathogen agent and then filling small bomblets with the feathers to explode over a targeted area, mushrooming contamination as the feathers drift with the wind to such likely targets as a high density avian population. Economic and political impact Any agro-terrorist attack on the food chain would create marked economic instability and losses due to dislocational, trade and health effects. Every bushel of wheat, corn or soybeans (all staple food and feed items) in addition to beef carcasses and pork bellies, has a futures contract written in Chicago and on other exchanges in Europe, Asia and Latin America. These contracts are all written on margin positions, meaning that the financial losses on unfulfilled contracts would be a multiple of the contract itself. Apart from stocks, losses could be incurred as a result of the following: loss of business for freight-forwarding companies, cancellations of ocean freight, rail and truck hauls; insurance claims on cargoes; and abrogation of contracts up and down the food chain. With only a partial and untested `Bioshield' system in place, one likely scenario is that US politicians would adopt a unilateral response to what is an international problem in the face of a bioterrorist attack. Whether it's cross-border winds or the globalization of our food chain, the fact remains that much of our own vulnerability rests with imported pathogens. The US cannot seal off its territory from these pathogens. By attempting to do so, the government would make matters worse in the absence of uniform international security and surveillance systems. The appropriate counter-terrorist response requires a global security system for sharing research, findings and coordinating strategies with trading partners where the United States sources and sells much of its food. Present policies risk the kind of economic repercussions experienced with Japan in the aftermath of the three-day soybean embargo imposed by the United States in 1973, which became a major shoku in Japan's economic history. Concern over food security, rooted in the soybean embargo, inspired the first and ultimate line of defense in Japan's resistance to liberalizing international trade rules for the agricultural sector. counterattacks The first priority to combat these threats is to invest in the creation of pathogen-resistant crops through genetic engineering. The National Plant Genome Initiative (Washington, DC, USA) is an international collaboration between academia and the private sector to build a plant genome research infrastructure targeted at sequencing model plant species and therefore identifying genes associated with disease resistance. Together with information concerning large-animal genomes--the cattle genome is anticipated soon-- genomic information can be applied to develop new strains of plants and livestock resistant to animal and plant pathogens likely to be used by terrorists. The US Department of Agriculture's (Washington, DC, USA) newly sponsored research centers and other joint government and private sector initiatives inside and outside the United States could also contribute to the search for resistant strains of livestock. In addition, short-term virus testing and monitoring measures can be adopted to address the problem of increased susceptibility of livestock to disease due to changes in cattle feeding and meatpacking. The discovery earlier in 2004 of a BSE-infected Holstein cow in the United States demonstrated that the monitoring and surveillance system in place is insufficient for rapid detection purposes. There is also an immediate need for a stronger set of regulations that feature comprehensive coordination of research, detection and surveillance on both national and international fronts. Private industry partners in this undertaking must be treated equitably and fairly with a greater effort to broaden industry representation. The easiest step that can be taken to strengthen US defenses is to initiate and fund an intensive personnel training program to meet CBPA (Customs and Border Protection Agency) and FDA's ambitious program benchmarks for field operations, including port inspections, staffing and personal training, and industry registrations. We still lack uniform and consistent enforcement standards for industry and government agencies. Although that is the 15-year goal of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) run by the US Customs, nothing in place can accommodate different information and reporting systems in both the government and the private sector. Longer term measures should include accelerated research programs and an integration and internationalization of policy planning and enforcement. Although the target is to create a practical system of defense for the US food chain, new endeavors to foil terrorists also can result in a broader international system of preparedness. Lifting the siege is the first step to defeating the aggressors.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that today I have introduced the ``Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act'' in the 109th Congress along with Representatives Chet Edwards of Texas, Jeff Miller of Florida, and Duke Cunningham of California. This bipartisan bill addresses recent developments and offers meaningful remedies to the ``broken promise'' of health care for military retirees. We have sent thousands of troops to do battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are creating a new generation of veterans who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Our government must be accountable for the promises it makes to young men and women who are asked to serve our country in this way. For generations, recruits for military service were promised by their own government that if they served a career of 20 years in uniform, then they and their dependants would receive health care upon retirement. But while these career soldiers put their lives on the line for our country, the government did not keep its end of the contract. The Courts have laid to rest the question of who is responsible for making good on promises of lifetime health care that were made to young men and women who joined the service during World War II and the Korean eras. In June of 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider an appeal to a November 18, 2002 Federal Appeals Court ruling in a suit filed against the government of the United States on behalf of World War II and Korean era military retirees. Retired Air Force Colonel George ``Bud'' Day, a highly decorated Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, filed a breach of contract suit on behalf of two retired colonels who contended they had been recruited into military service as young men with the promise of lifetime health care upon retirement after serving at least 20 years in uniform. In 1956, long after Col. Day's clients signed up for military duty, Congress enacted the first laws that defined, and began to limit, the level of health care that would be provided to military retirees. These laws, which took effect on December 7, 1956, made health care available at military facilities conditioned on space availability--in other words, military retirees had to go to the end of the line and wait for health care. Subsequent laws removed them entirely from the military health care system when they became eligible for Medicare, resulting in a dramatic reduction in health care benefits. The Appeals Court ruled against the plaintiffs on a technicality, arguing that promises by recruiters were invalid because only Congress could authorize military health care, which Congress had not done when the plaintiffs entered the service. But although the retired colonels lost their case on that technicality, I believe they won their moral battle on principle because the Court acknowledged the injustice of their case. As the Court said: 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. . . . 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. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that American soldiers are fighting--and dying--for freedom in Iraq while American veterans and military retirees have to fight for health care to which they are rightfully entitled. Military retirees are understandably outraged by comments made by Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, that demonstrate a callous disregard for their past service and sacrifice. In a January 25, 2005 article in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Chu, discussing federal dollars obligated to health care for our veterans and military retirees, was quoted as saying, ``The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself.'' Dr. Chu was quoted again on February 1 in an Associated Press story about proposed increases in benefits to survivors of soldiers killed in battle. This is directly from that story: Chu said he was concerned that in recent years Congress had gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits, but he said the proposed increase in survivor benefits was well justified. Bigger military benefits that apply mainly to retirees and their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to afford financial incentives targeted at maintaining today's military, Chu said. ``They are starting to crowd out two things: first, our ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right now in Iraq or Afghanistan,'' Chu said. ``(Second), we are undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is going to make that military person successful five, ten, 15 years from now.'' I do not think Dr. Chu meant to imply that it is wrong that we provide earned and promised health care benefits to our military retirees, veterans and their families; at least I hope that Dr. Chu was implying that Congress needs to address the dilemma within the federal budget where the needs of ongoing military operations and active duty personnel are forced to compete with the needs of military retirees and veterans. But the implications of Dr. Chu's words are undeniable--that keeping the promises our country made to our military veterans and retirees simply is not a priority. Military retirees and their families, who have been misled by empty promises in the past, see the root of the dilemma in Dr. Chu's words: that they have served their purpose to America and are no longer needed, that they--who served a career in uniform to protect our freedoms--are now looked upon as a burden on society, that they have been used up and thrown away like an old worn out paper bag. That is why our offices have received thousands of brown paper bags in the mail, with messages written on them urging this body to pass the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act. I am told that, as of today, military retirees and their families and supporters have sent over 20,000 paper bags to Congress and that more are arriving every day. The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act was originally introduced in 1999 to acknowledge the promises made in good faith to America's military retirees. That version of the bill led to the enactment of Tricare for Life, TFL, which went a long way to restore health care to military retirees over age 65. But more needs to be done to keep our promises to that elderly group of retirees and to make sure that younger retirees receive the level of health care to which they are entitled. Our new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises by waiving the premium that World War II and Korean era military retirees must pay to enroll in Medicare Part B, a requirement of TFL. The new bill also addresses broken promises made to military retirees who joined the service after 1956. Even though laws were on the books beginning in 1956 that defined and limited military retiree health care, the sad truth is that the empty promise of lifetime health care was used as a recruiting tool for many years beyond the scope of the Col. Day's case, to those who entered the military after 1956. This is documented in recruiting literature well into the 1990s. We must keep our promises to them, too. These retirees, mainly from the Vietnam and Persian Gulf eras, qualify for the military health care program known generally as Tricare. Tricare works well for many military retirees but fails to deliver quality health care for others. Some retirees cannot receive care at military bases due to lack of space availability. Base closures have cut off access for many retirees, and too many of them cannot find private doctors who will put up with bureaucratic inefficiencies or low reimbursements they have encountered with Tricare. I believe strongly that military retirees who are not well served by Tricare deserve an alternative. The Keep Our Promise Act has offered these retirees the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP; the bill improves this benefit for military retirees by reimbursing them for expenses they incur under FEHBP that they would not have incurred under Tricare and makes certain improvements to the military pharmacy benefit. The Courts have ruled. It is up to Congress to make good on the promises that were made--and broken--to our military retirees. They are not asking for handouts--they ask only for what was promised to them and what they earned. We need to do right by our military retirees, and to show our future military retirees that their government will live up to the promises it makes to them. We need to enact into law the important provisions of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of urgency that I reintroduce the Keep Our Promises to America's Children and Teachers Act at the outset of the 109th Congress. I offer the Keep Our PACT Act today to help meet the aspirations of our nation's school children--and to help provide all of their teachers and schools with the resources they need to help them achieve those aspirations. Additionally, I offer this bill as a reminder to those of us in government of the importance of keeping our promises and of truly making education the priority our constituents believe it to be. Put simply, the Keep Our PACT Act would make good on two basic commitments the federal government has made but so far failed to keep: It would fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)--on a mandatory basis, once and for all. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill funded No Child Left Behind at $24.5 billion--$9.8 billion below its authorized level and $27 billion less cumulatively than the bipartisan agreement reached just four short years ago. As a result, over 2.4 million students are currently not getting the extra Title I help they were promised under NCLB. Furthermore, the recently enacted Omnibus continued underfunding IDEA at $10.7 billion--less than half the 40 percent average per pupil expenditure the federal government originally promised the states thirty years ago. An estimated 6.7 million students with disabilities are currently being shortchanged as a result of this abdication. By keeping our commitments to NCLB and IDEA, we can support our schools, ease the property tax burden on our constituents and provide all of our students with the resources they need to succeed. Mr. Speaker, once again I am proud to make the Keep Our PACT Act the very first piece of legislation I introduce this Congress. Additionally, I want to thank my colleagues joining me as original cosponsors on this bill today--in particular, Mr. Miller, Ms. Woolsey and all of the Education and Workforce Committee Democrats. We pledge to stand for the fundamental values this bill represents and invite Members from both sides of the aisle to embrace those values and get this bill passed this year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in complete support of the unanimous consent agreement to strike the FY `05 omnibus spending bill provision that would allow congressional staff and appropriators access to individual tax returns. But I must point out that Congress has made a similar mistake by dropping from the same bill a House amendment advocated by Representative Capito and me, that would have prevented 2.6 million tax returns a year to be turned over to private contractors for the purposes of tax collection. While Congress is attempting to correct what is clearly a bad idea to allow congressional staff and Members of Congress to peruse individual tax returns, taxpayers are also vulnerable to potential abuses of tax return disclosure through private debt collection agents. Prior to the 2004 election, Congress enacted H.R. 4520, the corporate tax bill that will give the IRS private tax collection authority. The enacted language allows the IRS to use private collection agencies to collect tax debt. This means that up to 2.6 million tax returns--which are currently only scrutinized by federal government employees--will now be open to at least 10 private collection agencies within the first 6 months, and an untold number of private debt collection staff. While IRS employees are explicitly forbidden from being evaluated on the basis of revenue collected, the private collection scheme would actually link contractor pay to the amount of revenue collection. This policy encourages contractors to use aggressive collection techniques to boost their remuneration. Furthermore, the IRS is currently liable for damages to a taxpayer resulting from the misuse of confidential information by an IRS employee, but taxpayers will not be able to recover damages from the federal government where contractors are guilty of malfeasance. What's more worrisome is the IRS' inability to oversee the work of these private debt collectors. A 1996 pilot program for private collection was so unsuccessful that a similar pilot program planned for 1997 was cancelled outright. The contractors used in the pilot programs regularly broke the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, did not protect the security of personal taxpayer information, and even then failed to bring in a net increase in revenue. The IRS has said that it has learned from the 1996 project and is better equipped to address the problems raised. However, even recent evidence is to the contrary. An eye-opening report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA Audit #200320010) shows how IRS contractors put taxpayers' data at risk. The TIGTA audit found that the ``lack of oversight of contractors resulted in serious security vulnerabilities.'' The report, found that, ``contractors blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel identified inappropriate practices.'' The objective of the review was ``to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has adequately protected Federal Government equipment and data from misuse by contractors.'' The review found: ``The involvement of non-IRS employees in critical IRS functions increases the risk of misuse or unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer data, and could lead to loss of equipment or sensitive taxpayer data through theft or sabotage.'' Under the current conditions of rampant identity theft and deteriorating privacy here in the U.S., the federal government ought to be strengthening and protecting taxpayer privacy where it can. A first step is to eliminate the egregious provision placed in the Omnibus Bill. But a second, and more critical step, is to abolish the IRS' plan to place 2.6 million tax returns in front of private collection agencies and their staffs. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent down a path of contractor abuse and taxpayer distrust. I urge my colleagues to join me in the 109th Congress in working with the IRS to find a more effective means of collecting delinquent tax debt collection and avoid this risky scheme altogether.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Let me at the outset thank Chairman Boehner, Subcommittee Chairman Castle, our ranking member, Mr. Miller, and our subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Woolsey--along with our Senate colleagues, the rest of the conferees and their staff--for all of the hard work and long hours that went into producing this agreement today. This is not a perfect bill. But it is a significant improvement over the House IDEA bill that I and most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle felt compelled to oppose in April 2003, and I believe it represents the best outcome that could reasonably have been expected in our current legislative environment. In particular, I am pleased to see that this legislation restores some of the protections afforded to children with disabilities that the House-passed IDEA bill would have taken away. Moreover, I fully support the stepped-up monitoring and enforcement authority granted the Secretary of Education under this bill. And I believe the compromise reached with respect to certifying highly qualified special education teachers is a good one. However, while the conference report adopts the Senate's 7-year authorization path to full funding, I remain concerned that the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill we will soon be considering will once again fall short of the $12.3 billion authorized to fund this critical law. This is the 30th year in a row we have failed to meet our IDEA funding obligations--a record I consider to be an enduring disgrace. For that reason, I believe more than ever that we should make IDEA funding mandatory and place it on a near term, certain path to completion. Toward that end, the very first bill I introduced in the 108th Congress--the Keep Our Promises To America's Children and Teachers (PACT) Act--would have fully funded IDEA as well as the No Child Left Behind law. In the 109th Congress, I intend to make the Keep Our PACT Act the very first bill I introduce again, and I invite all of my colleagues to join with me in that effort.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the major goals of our education system is to produce knowledgeable and informed citizens. We accomplish this, in part, through effective civic education programs in our schools--like the innovative We The People program sponsored by the Center for Civic Education. The first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education was held in September 2003. The event was sponsored by the Alliance for Representative Democracy and co-hosted by our four distinguished congressional leaders: Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, Speaker Hastert and Leader Pelosi. One of the very positive outcomes of the congressional conference was the establishment of state delegations that returned home with the mission to enact specific policies designed to restore the civic mission of our schools and make available programs like We the People in each of our fifty states. In that regard, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Marcie Taylor-Thoma, the facilitator of the Maryland delegation, for her leadership in designing an action plan to improve civic education in our state. As a result of her efforts, the Maryland Coalition for Civic Education, representing over 40 community leaders and organizations, has been formed; a tool kit of best practices in civic education has been developed; and Maryland's teachers will soon have access to further professional development in the area of civic education. Moreover, I'm proud to note that these exciting developments come on top of Maryland's substantial existing commitments in the area of civic education--including our Student Service Learning requirement, our mandatory Government Civics course and our nearly finished state curriculum, which will include the teaching of civics and government from pre-K through high school. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Dr. Taylor-Thoma and the rest of her colleagues again for all of their hard work, and I look forward to the success of the Maryland Coalition for Civic Education as they participate in the second annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education on December 4-6 of this year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Leanna M. Gouthro, a constituent of mine from Silver Spring, MD, who will be retiring at the end of this month after 31 years of service with the Federal Government. Ms. Gouthro's most recent, and longest, Federal service has been with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The mission of the FDIC is to provide stability to the Nation's financial system by insuring depositors' funds up to $100,000 and by supervising over 5,000 state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System. Ms. Gouthro has contributed to the FDIC's mission through her extraordinary accomplishments in the agency's Office of Legislative Affairs. While they may not realize it, many of my colleagues who have sent inquiries to the FDIC over the years have benefited from the talents and energy of Lee Gouthro. When Lee joined the FDIC in 1987, there was no system in place for tracking congressional correspondence, other than a rudimentary hard copy filing system. She recognized the opportunity created by computers and set up a system that would impose controls and accountability for correspondence tracking, seeking special permission from then-Chairman William Seidman for the acquisition of a personal computer--the first one obtained for any of the FDIC's executive offices. As many of my colleagues may remember from the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, the banking and savings and loan industry was, to say the least, in great turmoil. The impact on our constituents was extremely difficult. Lee not only handled the FDIC's correspondence system, but implemented the system for the Resolution Trust Corporation and was instrumental in hiring and training personnel for handling the RTC's system. With over 2,100 bank and savings institutions failing during this time period--with almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars in assets--many of our constituents faced uncertainty on loan payments, checking accounts, safe-deposit boxes--many of the things they take for granted. Over this time period, the constituent complaints and correspondence became increasingly complicated, sensitive and controversial. Lee was always the consummate team player and never deviated from her focus on quality, accuracy and responsiveness to the Congress. She developed and managed a process that provided answers to congressional inquiries in an average of 2 weeks, an exceptional standard of excellence that allows Senators and Members of Congress to address issues promptly. The result of Lee's overall efforts is a correspondence system that is a model for other regulatory agencies and government offices. Officials from the White House, Federal Reserve Board, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board have either visited the FDIC's offices to see her first-class system or have invited Lee to their offices to consult in setting up their own correspondence systems. As Lee Gouthro retires, I know that my colleagues join me in wishing her well in her future endeavors and expressing our appreciation for her service to the American people and their elected representatives.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to convene the 109th Congress, one of our top priorities should be getting our fiscal house in order. Unfortunately the Republican leadership is sending us in the wrong direction. The House voted recently to raise the debt limit by a total of $800 billion. The vote to raise the debt limit for a third time in 3 years is a direct consequence of the reckless fiscal policy pursued by the Republican leadership over the last few years. A key step to putting America back on the path to financial security would be re-implementing pay-as-you-go policies. The House Republican leadership blocked efforts to restore these rules. Using pay-as-you-go rules, the Clinton administration helped turn a $290 billion budget deficit in 1992 into budget surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000. As a result, the Clinton administration was successful in paying down $362 billion in publicly held debt. However, in 2002, the Republican leadership let the pay-as-you-go rules expire and once again we are facing endless budget deficits and soaring national debt. Debt increases have serious consequences for American families. At a time when the House leadership is promoting more and more tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, increased budget deficits create an enormous debt that will mortgage our future. While a few are benefiting disproportionately from certain Bush tax cuts, all Americans will pay the consequences through the rising ``debt tax.'' Throughout our history, every generation of Americans has worked to leave our children a world that is stronger and more secure than the one that was left to us. That is our legacy and it should also be our commitment. It is simply wrong to run up a debt on our national credit card and leave our children to pay the bill. We must take personal responsibility to return our Nation to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I commend the Liberal Studies Degree Program at Georgetown University, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary. For three decades, this unique and wonderful program has served the Washington DC area by offering bachelors and masters degrees in interdisciplinary liberal arts. And I am further pleased to commend the person who has headed and guided this unique program for the past 25 years, Associate Dean Phyllis O'Callaghan, a constituent from Chevy Chase, Maryland. As the cochair of the 30th Anniversary Celebration, Chester Gillis, Chairman of the Theology Department and Core Faculty Advisor for Religious Studies in the Liberal Studies Program, stated at the ceremony, the ``heart and soul of this enterprise--someone who embodies Liberal Studies at Georgetown and commands national recognition and respect'' is Associate Dean Phyllis O'Callaghan. In recognition for her work with this program and for all her accomplishments, Dr. O'Callaghan was awarded the ``President's Medal,'' which is the highest award that Georgetown University can present. The Liberal Studies Program at Georgetown is truly unique, outstanding and very special. The program was designed to offer most courses in the evenings and on Saturdays, in order to best accommodate the schedules of those who wish to participate in academia while still pursuing professional careers. The majority of students in the Liberal Studies program are ``working students,'' and the program reflects the intellectual curiosity, breadth of interest, and professional experience of these students whose lives and occupations most graduate programs do not address. The students come from all walks of life. Some are recent college graduates who wish to continue their education by working for a Master's degree. Others work for the government--on the Hill or in the Executive branch. Some are foreign born and are currently working at various embassies or international organizations. This diversity enhances class discussions and enriches the entire program. The professors represent the best Georgetown has to offer. Many teach full- time, but a number also have non-academic careers, which enable them to bring fresh experiences into the classrooms. Fourteen curricular fields provide concentrations in broad areas of special interest. Instead of focusing on academic disciplines, the courses are designed to reflect the questions and interests these adult students carry in their lives and their occupations. The courses and instructors enable the students to read and reflect on great issues that have concerned, thrilled and disturbed major thinkers and movements in the past and in the present. At the core of these courses are the values humans cherish, debate and that are replete in the liberal arts. The Liberal Studies Program graduate and undergraduate degrees are academically structured, intellectually demanding, and personally enriching carrying into the 21st century the Georgetown- Jesuit tradition of educating the whole person. Dr. O'Callaghan received her Ph.D. in History from Saint Louis University and then was a Professor, and then Department Chair, at Saint Mary's Notre Dame, where she also was awarded the Outstanding Faculty Award. She is active in the Association of Graduate Liberal Studies Programs and a Member of its Board of Directors. Dr. O'Callaghan helped the program to receive an $85,000 Grant from NEH; and a $1,200,000 Grant for the James Madison Foundation. The author of several articles and editor of two books; A Clashing of Symbols: Method and Meaning in Liberal Studies and Values in Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach, she also served at one time as a chief legislative assistant and speechwriter in Congress. I congratulate Dean Phyllis O'Callaghan and the Liberal Studies Program and wish them success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce the Disabled Federal Employees Protection Act. The Disabled Federal Employees Protection Act (DFEPA) simply states that in cases where federal jobs are contracted out, a Federal employee should not lose his or her job if that employee is an individual with a significant physical or developmental disability and had been hired under a program designed for individuals with such disabilities. The DFEPA was drafted to respond to a particular situation that occurred at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Last fall I visited the Hospital, which has developed an innovative and successful program hiring developmentally disabled individuals from our local community to work in its kitchen and cafeteria. Many of these individuals have worked there for more than 20 years. They are hard- working, reliable, and beloved by the naval officers and staff. I was shocked to learn that the Administration had selected these positions to be subject to competitive sourcing. In other words, these hard- working disabled employees, who had been hired under a federal program designed specifically to hire the severely disabled, would be forced to compete for their own jobs against people who were not disabled, leaving them on the verge of losing their jobs. I wrote the President about this injustice and am pleased that as a result of our timely intervention, plans to compete these jobs have been withdrawn and these individuals have been able to keep their jobs and the sense of dignity that comes with them. But it is unconscionable that other severely disabled Federal workers might have to suffer through the same thing. The DFEPA will protect Federal employees with severe disabilities from losing their Federal jobs as a result of contracting out. The bill does allow for jobs to continue to be contracted out to organizations like NISH (formerly known as the National Institute for the Severely Handicapped) and the National Industries for the Blind covered under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD). JWOD established specific programs to hire the severely disabled; it is not the intention of the DFEPA to interfere with JWOD. The DFEPA is supported by many organizations, including ANCOR (The American Network of Community Options and Resources), The Public Policy Collaboration of United Cerebral Palsy and the Arc of the United States. The DFEPA also has the support of the Professional Services Council, one of the principal organizations representing government contractors, because they agree that supporting employment opportunities for the disabled is important. Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyone in this body wants to protect employment opportunities for the severely disabled. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the Disabled Federal Employees Protection Act. I am submitting for the Record an article that was published by The Washington Post on October 14, 2003 that describes the situation involving the scullery workers at the National Naval Medical Center. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2004] In Bethesda, Hiring Policy, ``Competitive Sourcing'' Clash Naval Medical Center Considers Replacing Disabled Workers (By Christopher Lee) President Bush's efforts to make government run more like a business collided this month with the reality that, in many ways, government is not a business. For the past 2 years, the Navy, as part of the Bush administration's initiative, has been studying whether a private contractor should take over the custodial and food services provided by 21 Federal employees at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. It is just one small example of Bush's ``competitive sourcing'' initiative, which requires hundreds of thousands of civil servants across the government to prove they can do their work better and more cheaply than a private contractor, or risk seeing the work outsourced. But in one important way the 21 workers in the hospital scullery are different: All are mentally retarded, beneficiaries of Federal policies that promote the employment of people with disabilities. To their supporters, the administration's requirement that they compete for their jobs misses the point that government employment has always been about more than the bottom line. Through various policies and laws, Federal agencies for decades have gone out of their way to hire members of certain populations, from veterans to disabled people to welfare mothers and students. ``There are different goals of the Federal government, and one of those goals is to get different people into real jobs,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who met last month with the scullery workers at the hospital, which is in his district. ``And this [policy] will undercut that goal.'' Bush has strongly defended ``competitive sourcing,'' calling it one of his most important management initiatives. He says forcing government workers to compete with private contractors for their jobs promotes government efficiency and saves taxpayer dollars--even if the jobs stay in-house. An Oct. 3 report by the Office of Management and Budget said Federal agencies have identified 434,820 jobs that are ripe for such competition, of which 103,412 are being evaluated for possible contracting out. ``We are confident that the savings and service benefits expected from this effort will soon follow,'' Clay Johnson III, OMB's deputy director for management, said that day. That provides scant comfort to employees such as Devorah Shapiro, 30, who has worked at the hospital scullery for 10 years and worries what will happen if she loses her job. ``I like working here,'' Shapiro said the other day while taking a break from the first half of her 8-hour shift. ``I work on the belt. I help push carts upstairs sometimes. I wash plates, pick silverware--I do everything.'' Shapiro landed the job after interning at the hospital while a student at Rock Terrace School, a public campus in Rockville that serves 112 special-needs children in grades 6 through 12. ``I live in a group home and I have to pay the rent there,'' said Shapiro, her dark curls tucked neatly under a hairnet. ``And I have to work, or else they'll ask me to leave. I don't want to leave my friends. I don't want to leave my house. It's too nice.'' The work isn't easy. The employees, clad in blue uniforms and white plastic aprons, remove trash and utensils from used trays as they navigate across a water-slicked red tile floor. Many wear earplugs to block out the drone of the industrial dishwasher that cleans the dishes and trays that pass through it on a conveyer belt before the workers retrieve and stack them in neat piles. Shifts begin at 5:30 a.m. and finish as late as 7 p.m. James Eastridge, 38, another former Rock Terrace student, has worked in the kitchen for 22 years. That is long enough for him to earn several promotions and enough money to buy a house in Hagerstown, where he lives with his parents. ``I started out when I was 16 years old and just kept on working; the years just flew by,'' he said. ``I hope we get to keep the jobs. When I was in school, I was pretty wild. They got me in the job . . . and I've been doing good ever since I've been here.'' Randy Severt, a teacher at Rock Terrace, said more than 300 students have interned or worked at the hospital since the school formed a partnership with the institution in 1979. The Navy got reliable, long-serving employees for hard-to-fill positions. The students, who earn between $9.42 and $12.80 an hour, were given an opportunity to work, learn about money management and become more self-sufficient. Providing such opportunities is a long-standing goal of the Federal government. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 banned discrimination against disabled people in Federal hiring and required agencies to develop affirmative action plans to hire more people with disabilities. Most of the scullery workers joined the hospital under a Federal hiring authority that allows agencies to take on people with mental retardation as provisional employees, then convert them to permanent status after 2 years of satisfactory service. The government employed 1,734 mentally retarded workers in 2000, about one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.8 million-strong Federal civilian workforce, according to the Office of Personnel Management. (Overall, more than 120,000 disabled people worked for the government that year, more than 7 percent of the Federal workforce.) If the hospital scullery work goes to a private contractor, it will mean a big adjustment for a group of workers who, due to circumstances and disability, do not cope well with change, Severt said. ``They have problems finding jobs on their own. They don't advocate well for themselves and they don't have a lot of skills,'' Severt said. ``Some of them can speak well. Some of them have very good social skills. But they are retarded, and they need help every step of the way. They just don't adapt.'' Hospital officials say the quality of the work isn't at issue. ``They're very loyal employees,'' said Cmdr. Martie Slaughter, the hospital's nutrition manager. ``I've only been here for 2 years and they are like my family.'' In similar competitions across the government, the in-house bid has triumphed more than half the time, according to the OMB. Even in the cases where the private sector has won, the employees often have gone to work for the contractor. But the scullery employees are at a decided disadvantage. ``If you are special needs, you have a great need for greater supervision,'' Slaughter said. ``And we all know that supervision costs money.'' Jerry Leener, whose son Mike, 27, has worked at the hospital for 8 years, said that even a White House focused on the bottom line should realize there is little to be gained by contracting out the work. Displaced employees would turn to government entitlement programs, including Federal disability payments, Medicaid and food stamps. ``If our kids lose their jobs, the Federal government is still going to have to compensate them,'' Leener said. ``Either way, it's going to be coming out of Federal funds. So we haven't had a cost saving as it relates to these kids. What's more, we've displaced them from their passion. They love working here. They love being a part of this.'' Military officials have been sympathetic but unmoved. Slaughter said that early on in the process she asked about getting a waiver for the workers, but none was forthcoming. Over the last year, parents of some workers have written to Navy officials and members of Congress seeking help, but with no concrete results. As recently as 2 weeks ago, Navy officials said they were still studying the situation. Parents of the workers grew nervous as a December deadline loomed for the hospital to submit its bid to keep the scullery jobs in-house. They were told that a decision on whether a contractor would take over could come as soon as March. Then on Oct. 2, 10 days after Van Hollen's visit to the scullery and after inquiries by the Washington Post, Navy officials passed the word internally that they had been directed to temporarily stop working on the job competition. ``The study has not been cancelled, but postponed until further notice,'' an internal e-mail said. Parents said they were given a vague explanation that the job competition had gone on longer than current law permits. A provision in the recently passed 2004 Defense Appropriations bill blocks new funding for single-function job competitions that have exceeded 24 months, and multifunction competitions that have exceeded 30 months. Navy officials at the hospital did not respond to two requests for more information about the decision. ``I have a suspicion that they were starting to feel political pressure and decided to put it on hold, and that maybe this thing would blow over,'' said Leener, who added that he remains uncertain about whether his son's job is safe. ``We took it as a big victory, believe me, but it's a temporary one.'' Trent Duffy, an OMB spokesman, said agencies may cancel job competitions that jeopardize protected workers, such as veterans or disabled people. ``It is permissible for agencies to make that determination and cancel a competition because these protected populations, these certain people, could potentially lose their livelihoods,'' Duffy said. ``They absolutely have that discretion under the law.'' Van Hollen, who wrote a letter to Bush urging him to halt the study, said he viewed the Navy's decision as little more than political expediency. He still believes competitive sourcing is ``a one-size-fits-all contracting-out policy that does not take into account other important goals of the federal government,'' he said. ``I still think it's an example of their policy run amok,'' Van Hollen said. ``There's no doubt what happened here. You want to applaud the Navy for reversing its decision, but you can't have a member of Congress or a member of the press visit every site where you've got . . . contracting out going on with model programs.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a provision tucked into this bill that has not gotten a lot of attention, but it should grab the attention of anyone who cares about fair treatment of the American taxpayer. I just take you back to 1998 when, in response to concerns about overly aggressive IRS collection tactics against individual taxpayers, this Congress, the House and the Senate, passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. That act specifically prevented IRS agents and their supervisors from being evaluated or rewarded based on the amount of tax revenues they collect. The reason for that was pretty simple and straightforward. We wanted to make sure that those agents treat taxpayers fairly and objectively. We wanted to make sure they did not have a personal stake, financial stake, in how much they collected and the outcome of disputes with taxpayers. We did not want to turn them into bounty hunters. Well, take a look at this bill. This bill has a provision that will authorize private contractors and private debt collectors to go out and collect the tax revenues of taxpayers and get a commission on it. They get to pocket that tax money, and they get a commission based on how much they collect from the taxpayer, and that is money that goes into their pockets, not into the public Treasury to spend on the public good. I do not think anybody in this body focused on this issue on either side of the aisle. I think it is going to be tough to go back home and explain how you unleashed these private debts collectors on the American taxpayer. I will say, when the Treasury appropriations bill was on this floor just a few weeks ago, by a voice vote, this body said, we cannot spend money for the purpose of private debt collection. The body was right then, we were right back in 1998 when we passed the IRS Restructuring Act, and it is a mistake to reverse that policy and unleash private debt collectors on taxpayers and let them pocket the money, rather than have those funds go into the public Treasury for the public good.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the other day I heard the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) assert on the floor of this House that the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation were being considered by the various committees in this House on a bipartisan basis. Well, in the Committee on Government Reform, there were some areas of strong bipartisan agreement. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, one of those areas was the need to implement one of the central recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report to develop a system of information-sharing among different Federal Government agencies that collect and analyze information. When you are trying to pull together information about a threat, it makes no sense for one agency to keep hold of its information and not share it. You need all the pieces to put together the puzzle. Now, this bill, H.R. 10 as it was introduced, had nothing with respect to information-sharing. So I, together with some of my colleagues, offered an amendment in the committee to do exactly that. And on a bipartisan basis in the committee, supported by the chairman of the committee, and echoing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, we unanimously supported that amendment and that recommendation. Well, guess what? The bill left committee and on the way to the floor, that information-sharing amendment was stripped out of the bill by the House Republican leadership and replaced by what is just a hollow shell, virtual dribble, nothing of serious substance on that issue. Apparently, the real test being applied here by the House Republican leadership is not bipartisan cooperation, but where there is bipartisan cooperation on the committee, let us get rid of that provision of the bill, because it does not fit with the overall objective, which is to use this bill and use national security for pure political purposes. Why would the House leadership remove a provision also contained in the Senate Collins-Lieberman bill to promote information-sharing? Why are they sticking up for creating separate turf and different fiefdoms among government agencies? That is a question they are going to have to answer to the victims and the families of the victims of 9/11.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) in thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the subcommittee chairmen and the others on that side for joining us in addressing a problem that we all agree has allowed lenders to pocket billions of dollars of taxpayer money at the expense of our students. The good news is that this bill begins to address the problem. The bad news is it does not do the job fully or permanently. As the chairman knows, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I introduced an earlier bill after the passage of the amendment that would close the 9.5 percent loophole permanently, completely, immediately and prospectively, not retroactively, and would redirect the proceeds, the savings, to the students that we were intending to benefit all along. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity in committee or on this floor to deal with that bill that would address the problem fully and permanently; and when I heard there was going to be a bill introduced on the other side of the aisle, I thought this is a good thing, it does not matter who has got their name on it. It does not matter whether it is Republican leadership or Democratic leadership. The important thing is to get the job done for the American people. But when we take a look at the bill, it has two very serious problems. One is it does not deal with the issue permanently. Why not? We could do it this year. We could do it now. Secondly, it does leave a big part of the loophole in place. It would continue to permit lenders to make new 9.5 percent-eligible loans using the proceeds from existing 9.5 percent-eligible loans through a scheme or process called recycling. Now, the Government Accountability Office has told all of us that that portion of the loophole accounts for 40 percent of the loss of taxpayers' dollars, and here is what the GAO says about closing the loophole, and I quote from their September report: ``Industry experts acknowledge that the government could take action to eliminate the 9.5 percent yield for loans made or purchased in the future without compromising the ability of lenders to meet their obligations with respect to their pre-October 1, 1993, tax exempt bonds.'' That is what the Miller-Kildee-Van Hollen legislation does. It shuts it down prospectively. And as the GAO report says, without government action, the taxpayers remain exposed to additional special allowance payments that can easily and rapidly escalate into billions of dollars. Now, when you close a loophole, my idea is you take care of the problem all at once. You do not just shut down 60 percent of the hole, allowing 40 percent to continue to drain taxpayer dollars at the expense of students. And that is what the other bill does. If you were talking about just protecting nonprofits, you would have crafted your bill to deal with just nonprofits. The GAO report makes it absolutely clear that the great bulk of lenders involved in recycling are for-profits. Secondly, if you address the problem the way we do, you will be sure the students directly benefit from the savings, 100 percent of the savings, from closing the loophole, not just a portion of the savings of closing the loophole. I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the original purpose of the Higher Education Act was to help America's students afford college. It was not to provide government-guaranteed profits to a few lenders and bond investors. We are missing, unfortunately, a golden opportunity to deal with this once and for all.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the question facing this Congress today is simple and straightforward. Should we amend the Constitution of this great Nation to restrict the rights and limit the freedoms of citizens of the United States. Our Constitution has been used to protect the rights of the minority against the sometimes discriminatory impulses of the majority. We must not today write discrimination into the very Constitution that has stood as a bulwark against discrimination. We must not enshrine injustice into a document meant to serve justice. I don't often agree with Vice President Cheney, but on this issue he is right. This issue should be left to our State legislatures. This Nation confronts many pressing challenges--the war on terrorism, jobs and the economy, and the many other issues that demand our attention. We should not be spending our time on a divisive, politically motivated issue that responds to a non-existent problem.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller, and the Ranking Member of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee, Mr. Kildee, in introducing the Emergency Loan Abuse Prevention Act of 2004. A short time ago, this body voted 413-3 to stop the Department of Education from spending any of its fiscal year 2005 Appropriation to perpetuate the so-called ``9.5 percent loophole'' in the Federal student loan program. This antiquated and indefensible subsidy guarantees lenders a whopping 9.5 percent return on garden variety student loans while costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion this year. That's $1 billion that should be going to students and families trying to afford college--not to already profitable financial institutions. The Emergency Loan Abuse Prevention Act of 2004 picks up where the Kildee-Van Hollen Labor-HHS Appropriations amendment left off by putting an end to the 9.5 percent loophole--permanently. Moreover, it directs the savings from this needed reform to the woefully underfunded Pell Grant program, which has lost half its purchasing power over the last 20 years. It's a win for taxpayers who expect us to spend their money wisely, and it's a win for students who--in this era of double digit tuition increases--deserve all the help we can give them as they pursue their dreams of a college education. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd like to submit a copy of a recent Washington Post editorial on this issue for the record and note that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) yesterday released its final report detailing the urgent need to close this loophole immediately. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us in the same bipartisan fashion as this House spoke a few weeks ago to pass the Emergency Loan Abuse Prevention Act of 2004 without delay. We have an obligation to our taxpayers and students to ensure that Federal education dollars are spent where they are needed most. (From the Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2004) Student Loan Scandal There are bureaucratic errors, there is congressional negligence--and then there are bureaucratic errors and congressional negligence on a scale so vast that it is hard to believe they can be accidental. The hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary government payments to the student loan industry in the past 18 months amount to such a scandal. The loans in question, established in 1980, are guaranteed by the government at 9.5 percent. Yet most students are paying interest rates of 3.5 percent or less. The difference--all taxpayers' money--is pure profit for the companies that have taken advantage of a loophole in the law. According to a recent report by the Institute for College Access and Success, a nonprofit education think tank, Congress had actually intended to end in 1993 the 9.5 percent loan guarantee, one of many programs that provide incentives for institutions to lend to students. In May 2003, one company, Nelnet Inc., wrote to the Education Department to confirm its intention to expand its holdings of old loans with the 9.5 percent interest rate. Nelnet received no answer from the department for a year, during which time the department continued paying the company. In June of this year, the department replied inconclusively--at which point the company's stock price climbed 20 percent. Although Nelnet is the largest holder of loans guaranteed at 9.5 percent--and its holdings of such loans have increased by 818 percent since January 2003--it is only one of many such lenders. According to a preliminary Government Accountability Office report, commissioned by Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D- Md.) and Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.), 37 lenders receive payments for loans with guaranteed interest rates of 9.5 percent, at a government cost of $1 billion annually, and the volume of such loans is rising. Why wasn't the loophole shut long ago? Education Department officials argue strenuously that only a two-year regulatory process could have done so, and they didn't initiate one, they say, because they thought Congress would deal with it. Congressional Republicans say they expected to deal with the problem in a comprehensive higher education bill, but that has failed to pass (and in any case the proposed language would not have ended all the payments). Yet, other solutions could have been found: In the wake of revelations about the scale of the payments, the House yesterday passed an amendment to an appropriations bill, offered by Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Kildee, that would close the loophole completely, albeit temporarily. (Of course, there is no guarantee it will become law.) And one former Education Department general counsel has written to the secretary of education, Roderick R. Paige, arguing that the loophole could have been closed immediately if officials had wished to do so. There could be other explanations for their reluctance. One is that the president of Nelnet, Don R. Bouc--who has called for the loophole to be shut and the money to be better used-- is well-connected enough to have been appointed to Mr. Paige's advisory committee on student financial assistance. Here is another: According to a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Nelnet is the second-largest contributor to congressional campaigns in the student loan industry, beaten only by industry giant Sallie Mae. Over the past 18 months, the student loan industry has contributed about $750,000 to the 49 members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, of which $136,000 has gone to the committee chairman, Representative John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), and $175,000 to Representative Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R- Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee on higher education. Mr. Boehner's spokesman vehemently denies any connection between the contributions and the issue and maintains that the committee's bill would have fixed the problem, which was mentioned in the president's latest budget. Still, it is difficult to understand, given the sums involved, why neither Mr. Paige nor Congress made this a higher priority. For nearly a decade we have argued that Congress should reduce subsidies for banks that lend to students, and instead expand the direct-loan program, which provides about a quarter of student aid--or else reform the system to make it harder to manipulate. This scandal provides an excellent reason to look again at these questions.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with my colleague, the gentlewoman from the neighboring congressional district, the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), in opposing this bill. The District of Columbia's gun laws have already been upheld by the Federal courts as constitutional, so the second amendment argument in this context is just a bogus one. This bill represents the height of arrogance. Members of this body have got to stop treating the District of Columbia and the people of the District of Columbia as their personal playground where they impose their will on people who did not elect them. The people of the District of Columbia elected the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). They elected the Mayor. They elected the D.C. Council. They elected the people who put these laws into effect. This legislation is nothing more than a contemptible effort to placate certain special interests at the expense of the people of the District of Columbia. We talk about a world upside down. The House leadership have prohibited this body from taking a vote on extending the ban on military-style assault weapons; and at the same time today we rush through a bill put at the top of the schedule to impose our will against the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record a letter from the representatives of the business community of Washington, D.C., the Washington Board of Trade, opposing this legislation at this time. September 20, 2004. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. Tom DeLay, Majority Leader, House of Representatives. Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader DeLay: As the unified voice of business in Washington, DC, we are deeply troubled by efforts within the House Republican caucus to repeal the gun safety laws that exist for the protection of the families, workers and tourists of the District of Columbia. If passed by Congress into law, The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (H.R. 3193) would eliminate the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, eliminate the ban on semiautomatic weapons, eliminate criminal penalties for possession of unregistered firearms and even eliminate registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms. The rollback of these fundamental public safety laws would have a significant, negative effect on the District's business climate, and could undermine the foundations of our city's economy and quality of life. The leaders of this city are working hard every day to sustain the progress of recent years by making this an even more attractive destination for tourism, redevelopment and relocation. We have had to overcome the lingering perception that D.C. neighborhoods are especially unsafe, and that our city is uniquely susceptible to terrorist attack in the aftermath of 9/11. To those ends, we have been very successful. Last year, more than six million people visited Downtown Washington. Large, international retailers have returned to the District, making this a regional shopping destination once again. The District's restaurant scene has never been more vibrant, as nearly 30 restaurants have opened in the downtown area since 1999 alone, while the District's hotel market has nearly returned to its pre-9/11 performance. Finally, the performance of our city's office market is the best in the nation--at this time, we are the only major downtown market in the United States with a vacancy rate under ten percent. However, much of our progress could be undone by passage of this bill into law. This would fuel the harmful perception that the District is a haven for weapons that have no place in our society, and that visitors, employers and new residents should come here at their own risk. Given the continued efforts of the business community to sustain our economic recovery, and the extraordinary steps of our state and local governments to safeguard against terrorist attack, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act is the last thing our city needs right now. We intend to pursue vigorous efforts to see this bill defeated, and we hope that you will not allow this bill to reach the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert A. Peck, President, Greater Washington Board of Trade. Robert A. Malson, President, District of Columbia Hospital Association. John Childers, President and CEO, Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area. Barbara R. Lang, President and CEO, DC Chamber of Commerce. William A. Hanbury, President and CEO, Washington, DC Convention and Tourism Corporation. Lynne Breaux, Executive Director, Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington. Reba Pittman Walker, President, Hotel Association of Washington, DC.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the process that we now have in place for contracting out work that is being performed by Federal employees, in other words, the rules that govern the privatization of Federal Government jobs. That process, which is known as the A-76 process, named after the OMB circular, is now a broken process. In fact, both Federal Government employees and private contractors have serious, legitimate complaints about the existing competitive sourcing process. This amendment would, in effect, encourage OMB to go back to the drawing board and develop a competitive sourcing process that makes sense and is fair to all parties. It is an amendment that is identical word for word to the amendment that the House passed on a bipartisan basis last year as part of the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill. We passed this amendment last year for a very simple reason. We recognized 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. Indeed, already this year, the Committee on Appropriations and this House have acknowledged that the process is inadequate because we have passed both appropriations and authorization bills that change the competitive sourcing process as it applies to specific government agencies. For example, the Defense appropriations bill that we passed, and which the President has already signed, changes the existing rules for Department of Defense Federal employees in a number of ways. That bill ensures that Federal employees of the Defense Department are always given an opportunity to compete to keep their jobs by forming what is known as The Most Efficient Organization. The Defense appropriations bill, again signed by the President already this year, requires that whatever entity is seeking to take over the work, to bid on the work, whether it be a private contractor or a group of Federal employees, must demonstrate that they will save the taxpayer dollars through a procedure known as ``minimal cost differential,'' or the ``10 percent savings rule.'' It makes sense that we would ask as part of the competitive process that we save the taxpayers money. The Defense appropriations bill also prevents private contractors from gaining an advantage by contributing less to health insurance for their employees or by stripping people of their health benefits. Those are provisions that have already passed the House, the Senate, and signed by the President as part of the Defense appropriations bill. They make sense and they are fair. If the current process is working, why did we change them as part of this year's Defense appropriations bill? Why should those rules which we now have applied to DOD employees regarding contracting out not also apply to Federal employees at the Department of Transportation, Treasury Department, and other Government agencies? Why should those other Federal employees be treated as second-class citizens? We also passed the Defense authorization bill this year. That legislation contains changes to the contracting-out process that requires that Federal employees and private contractors have the same rights to appeal an adverse decision. If they get a bad decision, they appeal. We should make sure that right applies equally to both parties. That is simple fairness. Then there are the Homeland Security appropriation bills and the Interior appropriation bills that have already passed this House. Those bills also have specific little changes to the contracting-out process. If it is so fair as it is, why did we as a body already change it this year with respect to those agencies? And, indeed, the bill we are on today, the Transportation-Treasury appropriation bill, as it came out of committee, contained the Hoyer- Wolf language that also would have made the process more fair, that was taken out on a procedural motion earlier. But the pattern is clear: The Committee on Appropriations and this House, through the actions we have already taken this year on numerous appropriations and authorization bills, have recognized serious problems in the contracting-out process. The only problem is we have responded on an ad hoc piecemeal fashion. We now have four different sets of rules in different appropriation bills, and we keep changing the rules year to year. The result is we have a patchwork of different rules that apply to different agencies. It is unfair to Federal employees, it is unfair to the private contractors. We should address this issue in a uniform comprehensive manner. That is what this amendment is all about. It does not get rid of the competitive sourcing rules. The rules in effect before May 2003 will apply until OMB gets its act together and addresses the inadequacies in the process and addresses the kind of issue that this House has addressed this year in its appropriation bill. That is what this is about; sending it back to OMB and telling them to start from scratch and get a fair process in place. Then we will not have to deal with this issue year after year on this appropriation bill, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.