Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the balance of time on each side?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say that this amendment is not, with due deference to the subcommittee chairman, about whether competitive sourcing is a good idea or not, or whether we are going to continue to do competitive sourcing. We have, as a U.S. government, done that, we will continue to do that, and it is a good thing when it is done in a fair and balanced manner. That is what this amendment is about. I would ask the subcommittee chairman why he would object to a provision that says when we do competitive sourcing the contractor seeking the work has to show that they are going to save taxpayers money. That is one of the things this House has included in appropriation bills that have passed this year, so we can make sure the taxpayer gets a better deal. That is not part of the existing rules. I would ask the subcommittee chairman why the Committee on Appropriations in this House have already passed four different bills through this House this year, one signed by the President, that already changed the contracting-out rules with respect to certain agencies to make the process more fair? That is what this amendment is about. This amendment is designed to make sure we have a more even playing field, that we are not here in Congress trying to correct the unfairnesses every year, but we send OMB back to the drawing board, have them use the old rules until they establish a new set of contracting-out, competitive-source rules that are fair to Federal and Government employees, fair to contractors, and get a good deal for the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Members of the House a newspaper article written by my constituent, Steven R. Rivkin, which was originally published on the Financial Times website on June 4th 2004. This piece offers some interesting, pragmatic and innovative views on how the natural resources in the Middle East can be used to help advance President Bush's stalled Greater Middle East Initiative. [From the Financial Times, June 4, 2004] Earmark RegionaL Assets for Mideast Peace (By Steven R. Rivkin) Palestinian and Israeli claims for lost properties unsettled for more than five decades can still be remedied through sufficient compensation. That's what an American friend of mine received after the US Army pulled a truck up to his idyllic New Mexico home early in the second world war and removed his family so the property could be used as a weapons development laboratory. His parents got a monthly cheque, enabling him to become well educated, live a comfortable life, and make worthy contributions to the US. And that's precisely the type of assurance for individual Palestinians that Jordan's King Abdullah II has now asked of the White House, once President George W. Bush acquiesced when Ariel Sharon ruled out a ``Right of Return'' to the Israeli heartland. There's a simple, just, and pragmatic way to launch compensation that the Middle East ``peace process'' has yet to appreciate: Recognise that there are rich regional resources lying fallow since the break-up of mandatory Palestine that could be earmarked to settle outstanding claims. Clearly delineated stakes in the region's strategic wealth could be pledged up front as collateral for individual recoveries. This would ease qualms over whether reparations would ever be paid and promote confidence that other impediments to peace can fairly be resolved too. A lot of economic value resides in at least three regional advantages untapped since 1948: Trans-Israel transport of goods and commodities to and from Jordan and beyond. Transit via Israel's ports and networks of roads and rail (themselves legacies from the Mandate) could expand mineral production (potash and phosphates) in the Arab hinterland and trigger significant economic growth in the desert kingdom. An Israeli ``land bridge to Jordan'' would set off significant efficiencies in world commerce, by passing the Suez Canal. What is more, the British built a petroleum pipeline in the 1930s from Mosul, Iraq, to the Mediterranean at Haifa, which has not functioned since Israel's independence. If restored now, this pipeline could provide critically needed, added security for exporting Iraqi oil to western markets. A large natural gas field recently discovered in the Mediterranean off Gaza, Egypt, and Israel could fuel electricity production, habitation, and manufacturing in all three areas and beyond. In each case, idle resources could be made to earn substantial and growing revenue for owners, investors, and lenders. If claimants for reparations were firmly recognised as equity owners, dividends could be paid to them out of revenue. Were ownership rights ``securitised'', some owners could ``cash out'' whenever they decided to sell their equity to third-party investors. Israel's current control over these assets is of minimal worth until regional co-operation is assured. Yet the real value of these dormant assets can be far greater if they bring a conclusive settlement within reach. So the loss would be merely conjectural, overwhelmingly offset by long-term gains through conciliation and many more economic opportunities that would surely unfold. For Palestinians, recovery of a productive share in what they could see as their historic patrimony would be psychologically fitting and a spur to regional stability, offsetting longing for specific properties lost long ago. Israel, Palestine, and their Arab neighbours Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria could all look forward to regional prosperity based on indigenous resources--positioned like my New Mexico friend when he lost his home in 1942, only to find the courage, supported by the means, to live a full and productive life. Israel could consider turning key selected assets over to a third-party trustee--say a corporation chartered and guaranteed by the US or European Union under protocols specifying that individual shares held in the names of eligible claimants will start paying dividends as soon as earnings flow (rather like preferred stock). Once currently unused assets have been earmarked, Israel's neighbours might be much less reluctant to initiate co-operative development projects. Having moved this one critical grievance up and out of the queue, negotiators could turn to other key issues--borders, Jerusalem, water rights, even limited repatriation whether or not production gets going right away. If the assets transferred wind up being lucrative, astute international mediation and private entrepreneurship will have removed a prominent barrier to reconciliation that is not only real but innately personal. Then, the natural workings of global capital and commodity markets could, over time, top up the monetary restitution. This is an issue better taken up immediately rather than left any longer to fester just in time to give new impetus to Mr Bush's stalled ``Greater Middle East Initiative.'' This writer is a lawyer in Washington, DC. From 1961-65 he worked for the White House Staff & Office of Science & Technology.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for offering this very important amendment to ensure the fair treatment of the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, it was just back in 1998, in response to concerns over overly-aggressive IRS collection tactics against individual taxpayers, that the Congress passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. That act specifically prevents IRS agents and their supervisors from being evaluated or rewarded based on the amount of tax revenues they bring in or that they collect. And the reason for that was very simple and straightforward: We want to make sure that IRS agents treat taxpayers fairly and with respect and that they look at each situation objectively. We wanted to make sure they did not have a personal financial stake in the outcome of one of their disputes for the taxpayer. We should not turn IRS agents into bounty hunters for their own personal profit. Well, now let us fast forward to this year. In the corporate tax legislation that we considered earlier this year, the FSC/ETI bill, there was tucked in a provision that would authorize private contractors to take up these collection efforts and directly benefit on a commission basis by how much they collect. How quickly we forget. This is a direct contradiction to the policy this Congress took back in 1998 when we said we are not going to allow our Federal civil servants to do this. But, hey, it is okay to turn it over to private contractors and turn them into bounty hunters. Now, it is true, as the chairman of the subcommittee said, that that is not current law yet. But that bill is in the conference committee right now with that provision that this House passed. I do not think many Members of this House realized, who voted for that bill, when they passed that corporate tax bill, they passed a provision that would empower private collection agents to go out and collect taxes and personally profit based on the amount of taxes they collect, these same individuals who, in 1998, voted to prevent public civil servants at the IRS from doing it. This Congress was right back in 1998 when it passed that measure to ensure objective and fair treatment of the American taxpayer, and it is amazing to me that this Congress would try to reverse that policy and turn some private collection agents into vigilantes to go out and try to collect this money. I offered a resolution last year, H. Con. Resolution 213, on exactly this issue. We have many cosponsors on that legislation. I am pleased to hear today we have additional recruits to that very important cause. We have a system that works now. We need to do better and be more efficient at the collection of taxes and revenues in order to be fair to those people paying their taxes in a regular and fair manner. But it makes no sense to reverse the policy this Congress took in 1998 when it tried to prevent overly-aggressive and abusive tax collection by the IRS and say we are going to allow these private contractors to do what we will not allow our public servants to do. We were right then; we should stick to that policy. I commend my colleague for offering this very important amendment, and I urge adoption.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Louise ``BeBe'' Canter, CPCU, ARM, who is completing her term as president of the Nation's largest insurance association--the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA)--this October in Orlando. Louise was elected to IIABA's Executive Committee in October 1998 and was installed as this great organization's president last September. She is executive vice president of Patterson/Smith Associates of Falls Church, VA and resides in Bethesda, MD with her husband, Bob, and their two sons, Christopher and Matthew. Louise has enjoyed a distinguished career as an independent insurance agent that has been highlighted by her tireless service and dedication to her clients, community, IIABA, the Metropolitan Washington Association of Independent Insurance Agents (MWAIIA) and her colleagues across the country. Louise's service to her peers began with her involvement with the Metropolitan Washington Association. She served as MWAIIA's president and as the organization's representative to IIABA's National Board of Directors. In recognition of her outstanding service, MWAIIA named her its 1991 Agent of the Year. Louise also served as chairman of the Southern Agents Conference, an annual conference of agents from several States, including Maryland. In addition to her position on the IIABA Executive Committee, Louise also serves as a member of the Association's Large Agents & Brokers Roundtable. Her other industry volunteer work includes service as a member of the D.C. Society of Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters' Board of Directors and the Standard & Poor's Agent Advisory Council, and chair of the CNA Branch PACER Agent Panel and the Southern Agents Conference. A highlight in Louise's community involvement is her service as a member of Howard University's Scholarship Committee. I applaud Louise for her tireless leadership of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America and for the numerous accomplishments achieved for all independent insurance agents and brokers during this past year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with my colleagues the news that the highest systemwide average SAT score (1102) ever achieved by the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) was produced by the graduating class of 2004, marking the first time the average score has exceeded 1100. The average included the highest ever average mathematics score (561) and the highest average verbal score in 12 years (541), the first increase in the average verbal score in five years. The improvements were achieved with a student participation rate of 80.2 percent, representing the largest group (7,263 students) ever to take the test in the school district. The higher SAT scores mark the achievements of the first graduating class of students taking the SAT who were exposed to the full range of the ongoing high school reforms in Montgomery County. The reforms began when the students were ninth graders in the 2000-2001 school year and have expanded greatly the opportunities for more rigorous coursework in preparation for college. In addition, the improvement included a significant gain in the system's ``average highest score,'' the same number used by colleges to identify the best performance among students on the SAT. The system's average highest score increased to 1115 last year, the best result ever and an increase of eight points over the year before. Overall, there were numerous achievements in the 2004 SAT results for which MCPS should be proud: Highest ever average SAT score of 1102, a gain of eight points; Best ever ``average highest SAT score'' of 1115, a gain of eight points; Highest ever average math score (561); Largest number of students ever taking the SAT (7,263 students); Highest average score for white students (1163), a gain of 10 points; Highest average score for Asian American students (1160), a gain of 33 points; Most high schools (four) with average scores above 1200; Most high schools (11) with average scores above 1100; and Average score of students receiving special education services increased by 26 points to 924. The average scores for African American and Hispanic students receiving Federal meal assistance also increased significantly--up 17 points among African American students (854) and six points among Hispanic students (837). This is an important point because the percentage of both groups of students participating in the Free and Reduced-price Meal System (FARMS) is increasing, lowering the overall average score for each group even as the specific subgroup scores increase. According to Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of the Montgomery County Public Schools, all of this has occurred during a significant demographic change in student enrollment, characterized by greater cultural and racial/ethnic diversity, a rise in students from low- income families, an increase in the number of students for whom English is a second language, and more students with disabilities. I want to commend Dr. Weast, the Members of the Montgomery County Board of Education, and all teachers, principals and staff for implementing school improvements including strengthened curriculum, improved assessments, greater coordination among and within schools, and increased staff training and professional development. The improvements also included increased student enrollment in expanded Advanced Placement (AP) and honors courses. Mr. Speaker, public schools are truly the backbone of our community. Young people across America face ever-changing social and economic challenges. We have an obligation to prepare them for the challenges that lie ahead, and I applaud the great work of the teachers, principals and other education personnel in Montgomery County who offer so much support to our families.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue. I am very pleased to hear that this amendment is going to be accepted, because I think it is a bipartisan amendment. Its goal is to save the taxpayer money, money that could be better spent both towards reducing the deficit and investing in education programs like Pell grants and other programs which will help provide greater student loans to many needy students out there. As Members have heard, this 9.5 percent loan scheme has been in place for some time, but only recently have we seen many people taking advantage of it and really abusing it. According to GAO's preliminary findings, it will cost the taxpayer $1 billion this year. If we do not close it now, it will cost the taxpayer even more down the road. These are dollars that could be invested in other forms of support in the area of education. I do want to note that the budget submitted by the Bush administration this year, the fiscal year 2005 budget, assumed that we as a Congress would address this issue. So I very much hope that as this appropriation bill goes to the Senate, that we stick with this provision and this position, because if we do not and this is removed from the bill, it will end up costing the taxpayers billions of dollars going forward. I am very pleased to hear that this has been accepted, but I do want to underline the importance of addressing this right now, because as a result of our action to close these loopholes, those that have been taking advantage of it may be encouraged to try and take even greater advantage of it until it is actually shut down. So if we do not shut it down in the next few months, we are going to see a further run on the taxpayer and further loss of valuable resources that we could spend and invest in other very important education initiatives.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to provide rehired annuitant physicians eligibility to receive a Physicians Comparability Allowance (PCA) and Physicians Special Pay (PSP) under Title 38. This bill would aid in the recruitment and retention of qualified physicians to the federal workforce. The PCA and PSP are both mechanisms by which federal agencies can provide physicians allowances when these agencies are experiencing recruitment and retention problems. Currently, civilian rehired annuitant physicians are prohibited by law from receiving these benefits. However, retired military that join the civilian federal workforce are currently not subject to an exclusion from the PSP and PCA. We are all aware of the possibilities of a shortage of federal employees due to an aging federal workforce. We must begin now to ensure that we have available pools of talent to replace the current workforce. We must make the Federal Government a viable option for talented and committed Americans. This legislation will provide additional flexibility and authority for attracting and retaining experienced physicians to the federal government. This issue was brought to my attention by my constituent, Dr. Nancy Scher, who is a Medical Officer in the Division of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Scher is prohibited by law from receiving a PCA or PSP in her current position at the FDA because she is a reemployed civilian annuitant. Dr. Scher spent 20 years as a part-time physician at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Huntington, West Virginia while also employed as a full-time Professor of Medicine at Marshall University. At the VA, Dr. Scher provided a high level of specialty medical care to veterans in a part of the country and at a time when this was a scarce resource. Because of her increasing duties as Chief of Hematology-Oncology at Marshall University, Dr. Scher took an early retirement from the VA with a deceased retirement benefit. Dr. Scher is devoted to her craft and being denied PCA and PSP will not prevent her from continuing her position at the FDA. However, the law should be changed to make her eligible for these allowances. It would be a shame for the Federal Government not to give highly skilled and experienced physicians like Dr. Scher all the possible advantages available to stay in the federal workforce. The FDA currently pays a PCA and PSP to younger and less experienced physicians. Dr. Scher, as a rehired annuitant is prohibited from receiving these benefits. Thousands of federal employees over the years have been responsible for breaking new ground in science and medicine. We must continue this tradition by ensuring that the Federal government becomes the employer of choice for scientific and medical talent.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, as bloated corpses floated down Rwanda's rivers, the international community debated whether the atrocities being committed in Rwanda fit the definition of ``genocide.'' By the time the world stopped debating, it was too late. Millions of men, women and children had been killed. The failure of the world to act in Rwanda remains a stain on our collective conscience. We must learn from the tragic mistakes of the past. Today, one thousand miles north of Rwanda, in the Darfur region of Sudan, more than 30,000 people have already been killed by the Sudanese military's aerial bombardments and the atrocities being committed by their ruthless proxies, the Jangaweed militia. Gang rapes, the branding of raped women, amputations, and summary killings are widespread. More than a million people have been driven from their homes as villages have been burned and crops destroyed. The Sudanese government has deliberately blocked the delivery of food, medicine and other humanitarian assistance. More than 160,000 Darfurians have become refugees in neighboring Chad. Conditions are ripe for the spread of fatal diseases such as measles, cholera, dysentery, meningitis and malaria. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that 350,000 people are likely to die in the coming months and that the death toll could reach more than a million unless the violence stops and the Sudanese government immediately grants international aid groups better access to Darfur. Here in Washington and at the United Nations headquarters in New York, many officials are again debating whether this unfolding tragedy constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing or something else. This time let us not debate until it is too late to stop this human catastrophe. Let us not wait until thousands more children are killed before we summon the will to stop this horror. America and the international community have a moral duty to act. The United States and the 130 other signatories to the Genocide Convention also have a legal obligation to ``undertake to prevent and punish'' the crime of genocide. The Convention defines genocide as actions undertaken ``with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.'' The actions include ``deliberately inflicting on members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.'' By all accounts, including the reports of U.N. fact finders, it is the African peoples in the Darfur region who have been targeted for destruction by the Khartoum-backed Arab death squads. In the middle of an unfolding crisis like that in Darfur, there will always be debate over whether what is happening constitutes genocide. But it is important to remember that the Genocide Convention does not require absolute proof of genocidal intentions before the international community is empowered to intervene. The Convention would offer no protection to innocent victims if we had to wait until there were tens of thousands more corpses before we act. A key part of the Genocide Convention is prevention, not just punishment after the fact. The United States has already done more than any other nation to call attention to and respond to this tragedy. But our efforts to date have not brought an end to the growing crisis. We must take additional measures now. The United States should immediately call for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and introduce and call for a vote on a resolution that demands that the Government of Sudan take the following steps: First, allow international relief groups and human rights groups free and secure access to the Darfur region, including access to the camps where thousands are huddled in wretched conditions; Second, the Government of Sudan must immediately terminate its support for the Janjaweed and dispatch its forces to disarm them. Third, the Sudanese government must allow the more than one million displaced persons to return home. The resolution must include stiff sanctions if the Sudanese government refuses to meet these conditions and it must authorize the deployment of peacekeeping forces to Darfur to protect civilians and individuals from CARE and other hunmanitarian organizations seeking to provide humanitarian assistance. It is critical that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan exhibit strong leadership on Darfur. Mukesh Kapila, until recently the top U.N. official in Sudan has been outspoken in sounding the alarm. I am encouraged that the Secretary General visited Sudan. However, the result of his visit must be more than an expression of concern. Secretary General Annan must make it clear that if the Sudanese government does not cooperate fully in stopping the killings and destruction, he will push for immediate international sanctions. He must let the Sudanese government know that the welcome progress made in reaching an accommodation with the South will not prevent the world from taking action to stop the horror in Darfur. The U.N. ignored warnings of mass murder a decade ago in Rwanda; it must not stand by again. We should not allow other members of the U.N. Security Council to engage in endless negotiations and delay a vote on the resolution. In this case, every day that goes by without action means more lives lost. Let's vote on the resolution. If the rest of the world refuses to authorize collective action, shame on them. Failure to pass such a resolution would not represent a failure of American leadership; it would be a terrible blot on the world's conscience. Whether or not the United Nations acts, the United States should take steps on its own. We should make it clear that if the Sudanese government does not meet the demands in the proposed resolution, the United States will impose travel restrictions on Sudanese officials and move to freeze their assets. Even apart from U.N. action, we can immediately urge other nations to join us in taking these and other measures. I commend Secretary of State Colin Powell for his visit to the Darfur region. It is critical, however, that the Secretary's visit do more than simply call attention to the tragedy unfolding there. The United States must make it clear that the failure of Khartoum to fully cooperate in ending the destruction and killings will result in a concerted American effort to punish the Sudanese government and harness international support to intervene in Darfur. We must not look back on Darfur ten years from now and decry the fact that the world failed to act to stop the crime of genocide. Rwanda and other genocides should have taught us that those who knowingly fail to confront such evil are themselves complicit through inaction. We are all god's children. These are crimes against humanity. Let us respond to this unfolding human disaster with the urgency that it demands.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a private bill to make Malik Jarno a permanent resident of the United States and to end the protracted ordeal of immigration removal proceedings that has spanned almost one-quarter of this young man's life. Malik is a mentally disabled teenage orphan from Guinea whose compelling plight has attracted the concern and involvement of more than 70 members of Congress, countless citizens, the international media and dozens of national, state and local organizations working with the mentally disabled, children and immigrants and refugees. Deporting Malik to Guinea to face life-threatening circumstances would run contrary to the standard of human rights and decency this country maintains. Members of Malik's family were killed and his home was destroyed in the midst of ethnically and politically motivated violence in Guinea. Immigration authorities have received overwhelming evidence of Malik's shattered life and the serious risk of harm he faces, given his father's status as a prominent political dissident, at the hands of Guinean authorities. The heightened threat associated with Malik's deportation places a special responsibility on this country to consider the well-being and livelihood of this young man. In addition, as a mentally disabled, homeless orphan, the potential risks of a life in Guinea are aggravated. With no known family or friends to care for Malik, he faces the reality of being relegated to the fringes of a society that has no infrastructure or services to support this young man's special needs. According to information from USAID, UNICEF, UNHCR, WHO and other agencies, there are no government or non-profit programs or legal protections for mentally disabled individuals in Guinea. Given his disability, he will face ostracism and severe discrimination and be extremely vulnerable to physical abuse, oppressive conditions and hostile treatment. In an act of desperation, family friends that were looking after Malik put him on a plane bound for the United States. Upon his arrival at Dulles International Airport in 2001, Malik was detained by immigration officials and held in adult jails, where his special needs as a mentally disabled child were neglected in the company of adult convicts, for eight months, before he was allowed to appear before a judge to apply for asylum. Only after another two years of detention was Malik transferred from a maximum security prison to a refugee shelter in York, Pennsylvania. His case is now pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This ordeal has dragged on for too many years and the perpetual uncertainty has left Malik anxious and unsettled. He continues to study, make friends, and go to school in York, Pennsylvania, but with the constant threat of being torn away from his life in the United States. Malik has a promising future in the United States and this bill will provide Malik with a permanent immigration status and the path to becoming a productive and contributing citizen. In these troubled times, where our reputation as a beacon for human rights has been challenged by the situation in Iraq, the United States has a heightened responsibility to guarantee justice and humane treatment to the most vulnerable in society instead of relegating a mentally disabled orphan to such a horrific fate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, as bloated corpses floated down Rwanda's rivers, the international community debated whether the atrocities being committed in Rwanda fit the definition of ``genocide.'' By the time the world stopped debating, it was too late. Millions of men, women and children had been killed. The failure of the world to act in Rwanda remains a stain on our collective conscience. We must learn from the tragic mistakes of the past. Today, 1,000 miles north of Rwanda, in the Darfur region of Sudan, more than 30,000 people have already been killed by the Sudanese military's aerial bombardments and the atrocities being committed by their ruthless proxies, the Jangaweed militia. Gang rapes, the branding of raped women, amputations, and summary killings are widespread. More than a million people have been driven from their homes as villages have been burned and crops destroyed. The Sudanese Government has deliberately blocked the delivery of food, medicine and other humanitarian assistance. More than 160,000 Darfurians have become refugees in neighboring Chad. Conditions are ripe for the spread of fatal diseases such as measles, cholera, dysentery, meningitis and malaria. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that 350,000 people are likely to die in the coming months and that the death toll could reach more than a million unless the violence stops and the Sudanese Government immediately grants international aid groups better access to Darfur. Here in Washington and at the United Nations headquarters in New York, many officials are again debating whether this unfolding tragedy constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing or something else. This time let us not debate until it is too late to stop this human catastrophe. Let us not wait until thousands more children are killed before we summon the will to stop this horror. America and the international community have a moral duty to act. The United States and the 130 other signatories to the Genocide Convention also have a legal obligation to ``undertake to prevent and punish'' the crime of genocide. The Convention defines genocide as actions undertaken ``with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.'' The actions include ``deliberately inflicting on members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.'' By all accounts, including the reports of U.N. fact finders, it is the African peoples in the Darfur region who have been targeted for destruction by the Khartoum-backed Arab death squads. In the middle of an unfolding crisis like that in Darfur, there will always be debate over whether what is happening constitutes genocide. But it is important to remember that the Genocide Convention does not require absolute proof of genocidal intentions before the international community is empowered to intervene. The Convention would offer no protection to innocent victims if we had to wait until there were tens of thousands more corpses before we act. A key part of the Genocide Convention is prevention, not just punishment after the fact. The United States has already done more than any other nation to call attention to and respond to this tragedy. But our efforts to date have not brought an end to the growing crisis. We must take additional measures now. The May 25 Security Council statement expressing ``grave concern'' about the situation in Darfur does not provide any authority for international action. The United States should immediately call for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and introduce and call for a vote on a resolution that demands that the Government of Sudan take the following steps: First, allow international relief groups and human rights groups free and secure access to the Darfur region, including access to the camps where thousands are huddled in wretched conditions; second, the Government of Sudan must immediately terminate its support for the Janjaweed and dispatch its forces to disarm them; third, the Sudanese Government must allow the more than one million displaced persons to return home. The resolution must include stiff sanctions if the Sudanese Government refuses to meet these conditions and it must authorize the deployment of peacekeeping forces to Darfur to protect civilians and individuals from CARE and other humanitarian organizations seeking to provide humanitarian assistance. It is critical that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan exhibit strong leadership on Darfur. Mukesh Kapila, until recently the top U.N. official in Sudan has been outspoken in sounding the alarm. But Kofi--I was pleased to join with Congressman Wolf and other members of Congress on June 4 in urging Secretary General Annan to go to Sudan to address the crisis there. I am encouraged that he will finally be going next week. However, this visit must be more than an expression of concern. Secretary General Annan must make it clear that if the Sudanese Government does not cooperate fully in stopping the killings and destruction, he will push for immediate international sanctions. He must let the Sudanese Government know that the welcome progress made in reaching an accommodation with the South will not prevent the world from taking action to stop the horror in Darfur. The U.N. ignored warnings of mass murder a decade ago in Rwanda; it must not stand by again. We should not allow other members of the U.N. Security Council to engage in endless negotiations and delay a vote on the resolution. In this case, every day that goes by without action means more lives lost. Let's vote on the resolution. If the rest of the world refuses to authorize collective action, shame on them. Failure to pass such a resolution would not represent a failure of American leadership; it would be a terrible blot on the world's conscience. Whether or not the United Nations acts, the United States should take steps on its own. We should make it clear that if the Sudanese Government does not meet the demands in the proposed resolution, the United States will impose travel restrictions on Sudanese officials and move to freeze their assets. Even apart from U.N. action, we can immediately urge other nations to join us in taking these and other measures. I commend Secretary of State Colin Powell for his decision to travel to Sudan next week and visit the Darfur region. It is critical that the Secretary's visit do more than simply call attention to the tragedy unfolding there. He must make it clear that the failure of Khartoum to fully cooperate in ending the destruction and killings will result in a concerted American effort to punish the Sudanese Government and harness international support to intervene in Darfur. We must not look back on Darfur 10 years from now and decry the fact that the world failed to act to stop the crime of genocide. Rwanda and other genocides should have taught us that those who knowingly fail to confront such evil are themselves complicit through inaction. We are all God's children. These are crimes against humanity. Let us respond to this unfolding human disaster with the urgency that it demands.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) in offering what really is a very simple amendment that says none of the funds appropriated in this agriculture bill may be used to implement the $10 billion taxpayer- funded bailout of the tobacco industry. Less than a month ago, as we know, in this House, we passed a bill that was filled with various special interest tax provisions, and included in that bill was the $10 billion bailout paid for entirely by taxpayers. Some call it a buyout. I call it a sellout of the American taxpayer. And this House never had an opportunity at that time to vote on that issue, and now we have that chance. Just think about what we are saying to the American people. At a time when we are running huge deficits in this country, at a time when Congress is telling schools around the country we cannot fully fund No Child Left Behind, at a time when we are not meeting the requirements of the Homeland Security Department agencies, at that very time we are asking taxpayers to foot the $10 billion bill for a tobacco bailout. Talk about misplaced priorities. And what are the consequences of a taxpayer-funded bailout to the big tobacco companies? They are going to get cheaper tobacco; and as a result, they will reap a big windfall. According to Agriculture Department economists, they will reap $15 billion in windfall profits over the next 14 years. In addition, economists will tell us, as a result of this bailout action, they will lower their prices and the result will be many more young people who get hooked on nicotine. And what do the big tobacco companies do to get this taxpayer benefit? Nothing. They do not have to do anything. They do not have to put in a nickel. They do not have to submit to any additional regulations. We now have before us an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to say we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars for a $10 billion bailout. I want to make a point that I think is important to many Members. This would allow a buyout to go forward not using taxpayer dollars. There is legislation, bipartisan legislation, that has been submitted before this House and before the Senate that calls for a buyout of some of these interests. However, in all those bills, the provision requires that it be funded not by the taxpayer but from other sources. That is all this amendment does. It says none of the funds in this bill can go for a taxpayer-funded bailout. It leaves open the option, the opportunity for other legislation to pass that would be similar to that that has already been introduced on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mattie Stepanek--a remarkable poet and precocious young man from my district. Mattie died recently from complications due to a rare form of muscular dystrophy. The 13- year-old captured the hearts of millions with his poetry and message of peace. Mattie will forever be remembered as a bright-eyed boy with a big, dimpled smile whose personal philosophy was ``remember to play after every storm.'' Mattie's poetry rose to the top of the New York Times best seller list and will now inspire people for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, Mattie was an incredible role model and inspiration for all Americans. In spite of his hardships, he dedicated his life to spreading harmony and hope. Mattie's message will live on through his poetry. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends during this time of loss.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, as bloated corpses floated down Rwanda's rivers, the international community debated whether the atrocities being committed in Rwanda fit the legal definition of ``genocide.'' By the time the world stopped debating, it was too late. Over 800,000 men, women, and children had been killed. The failure of the world to act in Rwanda remains a stain on our collective conscience. We must learn from the tragic mistakes of the past. Today, just 1,000 miles north of Rwanda in the Darfur region of Sudan, more than 30,000 people have already been killed by the Sudanese military's aerial bombardments and the atrocities being committed by their ruthless proxies, the Jangaweed militia. Gang rapes, the branding of raped women, amputations, and summary killings are widespread as we speak. More than a million people have been driven from their homes as villages have been burned and crops destroyed. The Sudanese government has deliberately blocked the delivery of food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance. More than 160,000 Darfurians have become refugees in neighboring Chad. Conditions are ripe for the spread of fatal diseases such as measles, cholera, dysentery, meningitis and malaria. The United States Agency for International Development estimates that 350,000 people are likely to die in the coming months and that the death toll could reach more than a million unless the violence stops and the Sudanese government immediately grants international aid groups access to Darfur. Here in Washington and at the United Nations headquarters in New York, many officials are again debating whether this unfolding tragedy constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or something else. This time let us not debate until it is too late to stop this human catastrophe. Let us not wait until thousands more children are killed before we summon the will to stop this horror. America and the international community have a moral duty to act. The United States and 130 other signatories to the Genocide Convention also have a legal obligation to, and I quote, ``undertake to prevent and punish'' the crime of genocide. The Convention defines genocide as actions undertaken ``with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such.'' The actions include ``deliberately inflicting on members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.'' By all accounts, including reports of U.N. fact finders and the USAID, it is the African peoples in the Darfur region who have been targeted for destruction by the Khartoum-backed Arab Jangaweed death squads. In the middle of an unfolding crisis like that in Darfur today, there will always be debate over whether what is happening constitutes genocide. But it is important to remember that the Genocide Convention does not require absolute proof of genocidal intentions before the international community is empowered to intervene. The Convention would, after all, offer no protection to innocent victims if we had to wait until there were tens of thousands or more corpses before we act. A key part of the Genocide Convention is prevention, not just punishment after the fact. The United States has already done more than any other nation to call attention to and respond to this tragedy. But our efforts to date have not brought an end to the growing crisis. We must take additional measures, and we must take them now. The May 25 Security Council statements expressing grave concern about the situation in Darfur does not provide any authority for international action. The United States should immediately call for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council and introduce and call for a vote on a resolution that demands the government of Sudan take the following steps: First, allow international relief groups and human rights monitors free and secure access to the Darfur region; second, the government of Sudan must immediately terminate its support for the Jangaweed and dispatch its forces to disarm them; third, the Sudanese government must allow the more than one million displaced persons to return to their homes. This resolution must include stiff sanctions if the Sudanese government refuses to meet these conditions, and it must authorize the deployment of peacekeeping forces to Darfur to protect civilians and individuals from CARE and other humanitarian organizations seeking to provide assistance. It is also critical that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan exhibit strong leadership on Darfur. I was pleased to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in urging him to go to Sudan to address the crisis there, and I am pleased that Mr. Annan will finally be going next week. However, this visit must be more than just an expression of concern. Secretary General Annan must make it clear that if the Sudanese government does not cooperate fully in stopping the killings and the destruction, he will push for immediate international sanctions. And he must let the Sudanese government know that the welcome progress in reaching accommodation with the south in Sudan will not prevent the world from taking action to stop the horror in Darfur. The U.N. ignored warnings of mass murder a decade ago in Rwanda. It must not stand idly by again. We should not allow other members of the U.N. Security Council to engage in endless negotiations and delay a vote on a strong resolution. Every day that goes by without action means more lives lost. Let's vote on a resolution. If the rest of the world refuses to authorize collective action, shame on them. Failure to pass such a resolution would not represent a failure of American leadership; it would be a terrible blot on the world's conscience. Whether or not the United Nations acts, the United States should take steps on its own. We should make it clear that if the Sudanese government does not meet the demands in the proposed resolution, the United States will impose travel restrictions on Sudanese officials and move to freeze their assets. Even apart from U.N. action, we can immediately urge other nations to join us in taking these and other measures. I commend Secretary of State Colin Powell for his decision to travel to Sudan next week and visit the Darfur region. It is critical that the Secretary's visit do more than simply call attention to the tragedy unfolding there. He must make it clear that the failure of Khartoum to fully cooperate in ending the destruction and killings will result in a concerted American effort to punish the Sudanese government and harness international support to intervene in Darfur. Mr. Speaker, we must not look back on Darfur 10 years from now and decry the fact that the world failed to stop the crime of genocide. Rwanda and other genocides should have taught us that those who knowingly fail to confront such evil are themselves complicit through inaction. We are all God's children. These are crimes against humanity. Let us respond to this unfolding human disaster with the urgency it demands.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2507, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, which both reflects--and improves upon--the bipartisan child nutrition bill we passed in the House on March 24 of this year. Like H.R. 3873, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act will provide food security to more children and families than ever before, eliminate needless paperwork for program providers and place a renewed emphasis on obesity prevention through improved nutrition and greater exercise. But--fortunately for America's children--S. 2507 goes further. It expands the popular Lugar summer food pilot to two additional states. It gives five states new authority to look at eliminating the ``reduced price'' category for school lunch. It establishes important new cost containment measures to ensure the integrity of the WIC program. And-- perhaps most significantly for those of us interested in increasing participation rates among eligible children--S. 2507 provides mandatory funding for all schools to directly certify food stamp-eligible children for free school lunch by 2008--and greater flexibility for schools to verify income through third party sources like TANF and Medicaid. These measures take an important step towards eliminating at least some of the barriers that currently keep otherwise eligible children from accessing these critical programs. Mr. Speaker, in closing I'd like to thank Chairman Boehner, our ranking member Mr. Miller, Mr. Castle and Ms. Woolsey--along with Senators Cochran and Harkin--for all of their hard work on this important legislation. I think we can all be proud that--at least on this issue--we have done the people's work.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents another example of the Republican leadership playing politics with important matters of national security. The decision of Libya to renounce its program to develop weapons of mass destruction represents an important victory for U.S. diplomatic and foreign policy efforts. However, the attempt to directly tie that success to the war in Iraq is not supported by the facts. Consequently, while I agree with much that is contained in this amendment, I will not engage in this politically motivated farce.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) in offering this amendment. As we have heard, last year, tucked into the 2004 defense authorization bill was a provision that gave the Bush administration, and any other future administration, Republican or Democrat, a virtually blank check to rewrite the rules and protections that govern 700,000 civil servants in the Department of Defense. What that provision did was strip Pentagon civilians of the statutory protections we have had on a bipartisan basis for decades. We in this Congress, we in this House, have an obligation to ensure that those civilian employees of the Defense Department are treated fairly and treated with respect, and we should not surrender that authority and those obligations to any administration, Republican or Democrat. Yet that is what we did last year in the authorization bill. While the Committee on Armed Services may have considered this issue, the fact of the matter is the full House has never had an opportunity to consider this issue, because the Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment on exactly this question. So we did not have an opportunity to debate this last year in the House. This is the first time we now have an opportunity to address this issue straight on. The testimony we have heard from the administration officials over the years, Republican and Democrat, has been clear, that our national security depends on a strong partnership between the military part of the Pentagon and the civilian civil servants. Taking away the basic protections that our civil servants enjoy with the Department of Defense would damage that partnership, it would hurt morale, and it sends a terrible message to the many men and women who we entrust with important national security work. Why should we give the executive branch the authority to eliminate rules that protect employees from discrimination based on political affiliation? Do we not want people to exercise independent political judgment and not fear political repercussions? Why should we give the Executive Branch the authority to rewrite and eliminate rules of due process that protect employees in certain situations? Why should we give the executive branch the authority to eliminate the requirement that DOD bargain in good faith with their employees? Now, last year, many in the administration said, ``don't worry, we are not going to take advantage of those authorities. Trust us. We will not go that far.'' Well, in February we saw the first write of the rules, and the fact of the matter is on both sides of the aisle, many people said, wait a minute. When we signed up for this, we did not think you were going to exercise your authority in this way in terms of taking away certain good faith bargaining rights. So that is what this amendment is about. As my colleague from Washington said, this does not throw out all the authorities. What we are saying is let us take a year, let us take a time out, and let us adopt the adage that many have shown is good advice, ``trust, but verify.'' Why should we provide a blank check? Let us give the administration an opportunity now to come before the Congress to show us exactly what rules they want, and we can have an opportunity to take a look at them, rather than giving them a blank check in advance and then being totally at their mercy as to what they put in effect. So this is a common sense provision. I believe it is a bipartisan decision. Let us let the administration tell us what they plan to do, and, if we think it makes sense, we can move forward on it at that time. Trust, but verify.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize my constituents at Beverly Farms Elementary School in Potomac, Maryland. For two years, teachers and students at Beverly Farms have been participating in the Birthday Box Program which allows children to donate duplicate toys and gifts to homeless shelters and other community schools and organizations in Montgomery County. I am proud to note that another school in my congressional district, DuFief Elementary School in Gaithersburg, initiated the concept of the Birthday Box. Students, parents, and teachers at Beverly Farms also participate in numerous service projects which include walks for the homeless and volunteering at the Stepping Stones Shelter. Mr. Speaker, Beverly Farms Elementary School is putting smiles on children's faces and lifting spirits throughout our community. It is my honor to submit for the Congressional Record an article published in The Gazette by Amy Reardon on the inspirational work done by the students at Beverly Farms and the great goodwill they are achieving. Gift Box Ensures That More Children Have A Happy Birthday (By Amy Reardon) Ten-year-old Christine Antonsen has so many toys she hasn't had the chance to play with all of them. Last year when her mother asked her to clean her room, Antonsen found birthday and holiday gifts, still wrapped in plastic, crammed in her closet and under her bed. She had never opened the stained glass art kit, flower printing kit or sand art kit stashed beneath her clothes and toys, so she decided to donate them to Beverly Farms Elementary School's Bountiful Birthday Box. Antonsen is one of more than 50 students who have contributed to the birthday box program, which has students deliver duplicate gifts for donation to county shelters, community organizations and Beverly Farms' sister school Maryvale Elementary School in Rockville. Antonsen's mother, Tracy Toppings, the PTA's community service committee chair, was inspired to start the program by the number of toys her daughter had but did not use. It is a concept the school borrowed from DuFief Elementary School in Gaithersburg. For the past two years, students at Beverly Farms have chosen to donate duplicate birthday, holiday and bar/bat mitzvah gifts to the school's Bountiful Birthday Box instead of returning the items for more loot. ``If you get a present that you already have on your birthday, Christmas, Hanukkah or any of those holidays, you can return it,'' said 7-year-old Nicholas Muscarella. ``But if you put it in the birthday box, it goes to families that don't have enough money to buy presents.'' Each month students are reminded to bring in duplicate gifts instead of returning them. Big presents, such as board games and dolls, go to Stepping Stones Shelter in Rockville and the National Center for Children and Families in Bethesda. Small donations, such as decks of cards, go to Beverly Farm's sister-school Maryvale for its school store. ``If kids don't get any birthday presents they won't feel very happy, so we're donating to them,'' said 7-year-old Rachel Rabinovitz. The birthday box allows Stepping Stones Shelter--a 90-day homeless shelter for families in need--to throw birthday parties for children living there, said Tina McKendree, executive director. ``The children in the shelter often don't get new things,'' McKendree said. ``If they can open something that is brand new, it makes it that much more special. ``They also know there are other children out there, who care about them. It helps keep their spirits up during a difficult time.'' Toppings said the box is only a small part of the school's community service program. Beverly Farms PTA formed its community service committee three years ago after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and directs most of its service projects to Stepping Stones Shelter and Maryvale Elementary. The committee's biggest annual event is the Fannie Mae Foundation's Help the Homeless walk, which raises money for Stepping Stones Shelter. Tying itself to two organizations has made the program easy to maintain and allows the group to address needs as they arise, according to Toppings. The partnership with Stepping Stones Shelter began when the school first hosted a homeless walk in 2000. Over the years, the school's service to the shelter has spawned independent volunteerism from the Beverly Farms community. Students have donated their allowances while families and scouting troops have gone to the shelter to volunteer: cooking dinner, reading to children or throwing holiday parties, McKendree said. ``Through the partnership the kids learn more about the homeless and how they can get involved,'' McKendree said. The sister-school concept, which links schools through resources and activities, is not unique to Maryvale and Beverly Farms. Compared to the 3 percent of students who receive free and reduced-price meals at Beverly Farms, 40 percent of students at Maryvale participate in the program. ``The idea behind the program is to be aware of differences in the community both ethnically and economically,'' Toppings said. Laura Marantz, school guidance counselor at Beverly Farms who collects donations to the birthday box, said the emphasis on community service and donations teaches the children empathy and generosity at a young age. ``[The birthday box program] helps them have perspective and realize how fortunate they are,'' Marantz said.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this week we are going to be asked to vote--in some cases, for a second time--on a package of misguided and previously discarded energy initiatives we are alternately told will enhance our Nation's energy independence, provide price relief at the pump and create good paying jobs for those still looking for work in the Bush economy. If only that were true. From the shrouded memos of the Cheney Energy Task Force to the most recent audio revelations of rampant profiteering at the trading desks of Enron, we can now see clearly that the approach embraced by this Administration and embodied in these proposals is a policy process run completely amok. Unfortunately, one need not rely solely on history to reject this legislation. A straightforward evaluation of its merits leads inexorably to the same conclusion. Take energy independence. We all have an interest in moving away from our current reliance on foreign oil. But according to the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration (EIA), the energy conference report before us today will have non appreciable impact on reducing demand for foreign petroleum--allowing oil imports to jump a staggering 82.9 percent by 2025, only slightly lower than the 84.8 percent rise expected under current projections. And what about gasoline prices? The same EIA analysis concludes that gas prices will actually be higher with this legislation than without it--increasing 10.3 percent by 2025 under the bill, compared to an 8.2 percent rise with no action. As for all those jobs purportedly waiting for out of work American if only Congress passes this bill, the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy Research reports: ``Republican claims that their energy bill will create one million jobs are not credible on their face . . . The number of jobs affected by the bill will certainly only be a small fraction (almost certainly less than one tenth) of the size claimed by Republicans.'' What's going on here? If we're not credibly enhancing our nation's energy independence, battling prices at the pump, or creating the next generation of high-tech, high-wage energy jobs, what in the world are we doing? Given the enormous size of our current budget deficit, along with the hefty $31 billion price tag on the energy bill alone, the taxpaying public has a right to know. Notwithstanding my serious objections to the priorities reflected in the bills before us, I sincerely believe this nation needs a comprehensive energy policy. For that reason, I will be supporting the common sense provisions in the Democratic motion to recommit. But frankly, I would do more. Rather than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)-- an enormously environmentally destructive exercise expected to yield the equivalent of about 6 months of oil some 10 years from now--I believe we should increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks to 40 MPG. According to the national Academy of Sciences, a 40 MPG CAFE standard is feasible with existing technology, and conservative estimates place the energy savings at a multiple of the amount of recoverable oil in the ANWR. As an added benefit, consumers would save billions at the pump, and localities would be significantly aided in their efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act. Additionally, I think it is foolhardy to talk about formulating a national energy policy without reference to that policy's potential implications for global climate change. So long as fossil fuels are part of our energy mix, we will be contributing to the ongoing carbon buildup in the earth's atmosphere. For that reason, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Olver and I offered an amendment at the Rule Committee directing the federal government to establish a comprehensive, principle-based, date- certain national climate change policy along with a national database for registering greenhouse gas emissions. The language we suggested was far more modest than the Climate Stewardship Act legislation we have introduced this Congress and, in fact, passed the Senate by a non- controversial voice vote in 2002. Nevertheless, on a bipartisan basis, we went to the Rules Committee--because we believe that the day for denial on this issue is over, and because we felt it was important to get this particular conversation started. Unfortunately, our amendment was not made in order. Finally, I think it is high time we stop paying lip service to energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewables--and start investing seriously in the green technologies of tomorrow. We should invite business, labor and the environmental movement to construct a new forward-looking energy policy for the 21st century--one that rewards innovation; propels American dominance in the global marketplace; moves us credibly in the direction of energy independence; safeguards our environment; creates hundreds of thousands of new, domestic, high- skill, high-wage jobs; and incentivizes the production and consumption of ever more efficient products and services. Mr. Speaker, we as a nation have a choice to make. We can embrace the majority's vision of watered down environmental protections paired with hefty subsidies for the mature, highly profitable, and yes, polluting, industries of the 20th century. Or we can craft a new, more dynamic energy policy that meets both the serious challenges and the substantial opportunities of the 21st century. That is the vision I will be fighting for, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time. I think it is very important that the American people understand the charade that the Republican leadership is engaged in here today. The two education bills that are being taken up this afternoon, as my colleague has said, are identical to the education bills that this House has already passed by large margins. They have simply been repackaged, dressed up and trotted out again as if they were something new, but this bill we are considering now was passed last year by the House by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 17. I do not think anyone has changed their mind in the House. This is a good bill, and it should be passed once again, but those who are close followers of the House of Representatives will begin to see a pattern here. Just 3 weeks ago, the House leadership brought out three other pieces of legislation at that time which were ostensibly health-related issues; and, again, those were three pieces of health legislation that had already passed the House of Representatives. So what is going on? Why are we doing this? Why are we wasting taxpayer dollars? Why are we tying up the time of the House of Representatives on useless, unnecessary and meaningless exercises? There is only one answer here, which is to create the illusion with the American people that the House of Representatives, that the House Republican leadership is actually doing something new to improve the higher education system and expand access to college and universities. We should not be wasting taxpayer dollars on what is simply a PR ploy, a cynical ploy. We are facing many challenges in this country. We are facing challenges abroad. We are facing challenges here at home. In the area of education, we should get about the business of fully funding No Child Left Behind. This year's budget is $9 billion short that was submitted by the White House. Let us fully fund that. Let us do something about the growing opportunity gap in higher education. We have got rising tuitions around the country. Federal support for students has been going down in real terms. Let us try and close that gap, but, instead, we are doing, as my colleagues have said, reruns, summer reruns. This bill today accomplishes nothing new. That is bad enough. What is worse is that we are trying to create the impression that we are doing something new. Sadly, it is a procedural hoax. It is an example of waste, fraud and abuse: waste of taxpayer dollars to be here and abusing the time of the House, a fraud on the American people in that we are trying to tell them we are doing something new when we just did this last year. We do not have to be doing it again. Abuse of process because we are taking the same bills, just giving them new bill numbers and telling people we are going to do something again. So I think that whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican or Independent they should be offended by this farce. We should get about the business of doing something new in the area of education, the area of higher education, do something about the big problems we face in this country and not going through meaningless exercises to try and create the impression that something is new. Madison Avenue would be very jealous of what is happening here today in terms of trying to create an impression that something is being done when it is not.