Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce the introduction of a concurrent resolution recognizing and honoring the crew of the USS Pittsburgh for their heroism in World War II. On March 19, 1945, the USS Franklin, as part of Task Force 58, launched an attack against Japan. The Japanese responded with an air attack against Task Force 58, striking the USS Franklin, killing 724 crew members and injuring 265 other crew members, and setting the USS Franklin ablaze. The USS Pittsburgh was dispatched to assist the USS Franklin. The crew of the USS Pittsburgh performed outstanding feats of seamanship, including attaching a tow line to the flaming USS Fry and rescuing 34 of its crew members from turbulent waters. The USS Pittsburgh and the USS Santa Fe defended against two additional Japanese air attacks while towing and escorting the USS Franklin to safety. As a result of their heroic actions in saving their ship, the crew of the USS Franklin was highly decorated, receiving awards of two Congressional Medals of Honor, five Gold Stars, 22 Silver Stars, and 250 Letters of Commendation, and becoming the most decorated crew in the history of the Navy. The crew of the USS Santa Fe received a Navy Unit Commendation. However, the crew of the USS Pittsburgh has never been collectively honored or recognized for their heroism and bravery. Therefore, my legislation resolves that Congress recognizes and honors the crew of the USS Pittsburgh for their heroism on March 19, 1945, for rendering aid and assistance to the USS Franklin and its crew. As we prepare to dedicate the new World War II Memorial, it is fitting that we recognize and honor the crew of the USS Pittsburgh. I am pleased to introduce this long overdue concurrent resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership proposal on the child tax credit is a travesty that puts politics above the well-being of America's children. I strongly support making the $1,000 child tax credit permanent. That tax credit provides important relief to middle and lower income families around the country. But rather than simply extending the existing credit, the Republicans seek to expand the child tax credit to higher income families by adding tens of billions of dollars to the nation's deficit. It is not the Republican leadership that will be left to pay that debt; it is our children and grandchildren. It is incredible that the same Republican leadership that refuses to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Initiative would-- under the guise of helping families--add billions of dollars to the debt tax that will have to be paid by future generations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is the unofficial start of summer: pools open, barbecues are held in local parks and in backyards, and families set out on car trips to take advantage of the long weekend. But the excitement of the beginning of summer should not obscure the holiday's true meaning--honoring the men and women who gave their lives in service of our country. This weekend, the National World War II Memorial will be dedicated in Washington D.C. This memorial allows a grateful nation to thank the World War II generation for their selfless sacrifices, which helped preserve the freedoms we all enjoy. I am proud to join thousands of Americans around the country in honoring them. They exemplify the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people to securing freedom and democracy throughout the world. We are not just the beneficiaries of their bravery. We are the stewards of their sacrifice. This Memorial Day, we have thousands of brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we remember those who have fallen, we must continue to stand up for those who are still fighting overseas and those who have finished their service with honor. 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. Military retirees--who served a career in uniform to defend our freedoms--are not asking for handouts; they are only asking for what was promised to them. I introduced the ``Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act,'' a bill to restore earned and promised health care coverage to retired members of the uniformed services. Many people joined the military believing they would earn a lifetime medical care in exchange for 20 years of service, based on promises made by recruiters and government officials. We must now honor that promise. I am pleased that a majority of the House of Representatives has co- sponsored the bill; now the House must act. Another promise made to young men and women when they were recruited was that their surviving spouses would receive a fair pension upon retirement. However, the military's Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) unfairly slashes pension benefits for thousands of military spouses just when they need it the most. In response to this injustice, I co- sponsored the Military Survivor Benefits Improvement Act. This is fair legislation that would increase the minimum survivor benefit and restore to 55 percent from 35 percent the basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older. I am pleased that this legislation recently passed the House. I am also fighting to end the Disabled Veterans Tax, which forces disabled veterans and military retirees to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive. I believe that our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle and that they should be given our respect when we bring them home. Our brave men and women in uniform fought for our country. They shouldn't have to fight the government to get the benefits they deserve. The National World War II Memorial will inspire future generations of Americans and stand as an important symbol of American national unity. It will serve as a timeless reminder of our solemn obligation to preserve peace for our children and the strength of our nation when united in a common and just cause.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bethesda- Chevy Chase High School BCC in my district for being named a GRAMMY Signature School by the GRAMMY Foundation. BCC is only one of 41 public high schools in the country to receive this prestigious award. The GRAMMY Foundation recognizes outstanding public high schools across the U.S. that demonstrate a commitment to music education. I am proud that, even in the midst of budget cuts, faculty and staff at BCC have managed to maintain and develop its arts and music program. BCC has successfully used the arts to captivate and engage students in the process of learning. The arts help children develop discipline as well as problem solving and critical thinking skills which are invaluable for future endeavors. I applaud BCC for its commitment to music education and for making a positive difference in the lives of young people.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time, and I want to thank him for all his work on this issue. As the chairman of the committee said at the beginning of his remarks, we have 43.6 million Americans who have no health insurance today. Now, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the associated health plan approach might cover 550,000 of them, less than 1 percent of the insured. If that were the end of the story, we might say, okay, does not do much, but it is better than nothing. The problem is it is not better than nothing because it violates the first principle in medicine, which is first do no harm, because the Congressional Budget Office also tells us that 7.9 million Americans who currently are covered will get worse coverage or pay more as a result of the actions taken in this bill. Mercer Consultants has said that 1 million Americans will lose their coverage. Do the math. Clearly, it is a lousy bargain. Much more harm, very, very little benefit, and that is because associated health plans, by design, eliminate many of the protections that are currently provided through State legislatures around the country for our consumers: basic commonsense rules of the road, like the right to external review if a person's insurance claim is denied; direct access for women to OB/GYNs; access to emergency room treatment; a prohibition against gag orders on doctors. In fact, these basic patient protections are so fundamental, they have been adopted in a bipartisan manner by this House before. When this House passed a Patients' Bill of Rights, it was going to apply those rights to ERISA plans and the other plans. Why not do the same thing today? Well, my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), and I just the other day went to the Committee on Rules and said let us have an amendment here on the floor of the House that guarantees those patients the same protections this House, in a bipartisan manner, guaranteed them a number of years ago. We were not even allowed a vote on that very simple amendment. Why is the other side afraid of a vote on providing patients the very same rights that this House has already provided those patients? Let me just say that if my colleagues ask State legislators and Governors from around this country whether they are for or against this, we have heard the National Governors Association is against this. In fact, my Governor, the Governor of the State of Maryland, a Republican Governor, one of our former colleagues, Governor Ehrlich, has written to the Maryland congressional delegation and said please do not pass this bill because it will interfere with a primary piece of legislation that was passed in the State of Maryland to provide for small group insurance benefits, and small employers throughout the State of Maryland are taking advantage of it. This would undercut it. There is a better alternative. We are going to be debating that later. We are not saying we do not have any proposal out here. We have a much better proposal. I urge my colleagues to reject this idea and later adopt the substitute.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical juncture. The horrible photographs of abused and humiliated Iraqi prisoners being beamed around the world have seriously wounded our already tattered credibility in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world. The damage done to our effort to win the hearts of the Iraqi people may be irreversible, but we owe it to the 130,000 American troops putting their lives on the line every day in Iraq to show the world that America will not tolerate such abuse. We must take strong action to demonstrate that we understand the severity of the problem and blunt the damage to our image and reputation around the world. Failure to send a strong signal will further strengthen the hand of al Qaeda and the terrorist groups who will use these photographs to bolster recruits and promote their cause. It is easy to try and dismiss the abuse as the acts of a few bad apples acting alone. But the fact that a situation developed where such abuse could occur in a facility under the total control of the United States represents a failure of leadership at the highest levels of the Pentagon. It is inexcusable that the Secretary of Defense and the top civilian leadership of the Pentagon did not foresee the possibility of such abuses happening and take steps to prevent it. The fact that some are now trying to brush aside these abuses on the grounds that sometimes terrible things happen to prisoners of war only reinforces the fact that such abuses were foreseeable and could have been prevented. Before the war began, we know that experts on Iraq warned that the toughest fight would not be the military conquest over the forces of Saddam Hussein, but the battle to win the peace. A fundamental miscalculation of our civilian leadership was their belief that removal of the hated Saddam would automatically leave the Iraqi people to embrace the United States. And the Bush administration has since made many miscalculations that have increased the number of Iraqis who view us as occupiers, including the continued detention of many Iraqis without proof of wrongdoing. In a battle where we knew that the greatest challenge was to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, political considerations are often more important than military calculations. Making sure those considerations are taken into account is the responsibility of the President and his leadership team. It should have been obvious to everybody that the negative fallout from any hint of abuse of Iraqi prisoners would be a huge setback to our efforts throughout the Middle East. Secretary Rumsfeld should have ensured that the procedures were in place to better screen the Iraqis being thrown into prison and taken extra precautions to ensure the physical well-being of those who were detained. Instead, just as the Bush administration has ignored the international concerns about prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, it has shown a cavalier attitude when international human rights groups and Iraqis raised issues about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. We will be learning more about the facts in the days ahead, but the lawyers representing the American soldiers who were directly involved have already warned that these prosecutions will ``open up a can of worms'' that will show that these abusive practices were not only tolerated, but encouraged by some of their superiors as a useful part of interrogation. Nothing, nothing could be more damaging to U.S. credibility in Iraq than to have Iraqis abused by Americans in the same Abu Ghraib Prison where Saddam tortured prisoners. The awful symbolism is devastating to U.S. efforts around the world, and reports that Iraqi women may have been subject to sexual abuse will further inflame the problem. It is hard to think of a more serious blow to our international reputation as we seek to promote human rights, freedom, and democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. The tragedy, the real tragedy is that the heroic efforts of our soldiers who have performed so courageously in Iraq have now been compromised by the negligence of the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon civilian leadership. Throughout the war, President Bush has used the rhetoric of leadership, but has failed to hold leaders in his administration accountable for bad decisions and serious omissions. Indeed, those who did raise prescient questions about the true costs and required troop levels were publicly rebuked, while those who have been consistently wrong in their predictions have received no sanction. This is a critical moment. The world is watching. If we do not want al Qaeda and our enemies to gain an even bigger public relations victory than they already have, the President must show the world that America will not stand for such abuse. The President was right to go on Arabic-speaking television stations in the Middle East to express his outrage at the abuses that occurred and make it clear that they are unacceptable to the American people, but that is not enough to repair the severe damage that has been done. We must take additional steps and, Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record five additional steps that we must take to blunt the damage that has been done as a result of this. First, it is not enough for the President to allow a few very bad apples to shoulder the entire blame for actions that have seriously undermined our efforts in Iraq and around the world. Leadership begins at the top and these abuses are the result of failed leadership. Even if Secretary Rumsfeld had no actual notice of prisoner abuse, Secretary Rumsfeld should have taken steps to ensure the safety of Iraqi prisoners. But Secretary Rumsfeld was on notice. He and his deputies at the Pentagon had access to numerous reports of alleged prisoner abuse and did nothing. That failure to act has now undercut the brave efforts of our men and women in Iraq; their failure to act has violated the trust of our soldiers and the trust of the American people. The President owes it to our troops and the American people to act quickly to remove those individuals who should have acted early to prevent this debacle. Second, the Administration must stop being so contemptuous of international law and norms and immediately grant an independent third party, such as the International Committee for the Red Cross, full and unimpeded access to all the prisoners being detained in Iraq. It has become fashionable in this Administration to argue that the United States should no longer be constrained by international law and norms. Indeed, Secretary Rumsfeld overrode previous U.S. practice in the handling of detainees overseas when he ruled that the U.S. would no longer be bound by the Geneva Conventions. That decision and other statements by the Secretary sent exactly the wrong signal. At a time when both U.S. values and U.S. foreign policy interests demanded tight procedures to prevent abuse of prisoners, Secretary Rumsfeld discarded the rules that had been in place. The result was sadly predictable and avoidable. We must now work to repair our credibility by providing the appropriate international agencies total access to prisoners being held. Third, the Congress must take its constitutional responsibilities seriously. Formal congressional oversight by the relevant committees of this House has been virtually non-existent regarding the conduct of the war in Iraq. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch and to hold it accountable. Yet, unfortunately, especially when it comes to Iraq, the House leadership gets its talking points straight from the White House. It has abdicated its institutional responsibilities as a separate branch of government and become a rubber-stamp for Administration policy. It is time for this House to fulfill its duty to our troops and the American people by putting aside short term election year politics and taking its responsibilities seriously. Fourth, we should immediately close the Abu Ghraib prison. It remains a symbol of the brutal repression under Saddam's regime. Regional experts had previously recommended against using that hated facility to hold Iraqi prisoners because of the terrible message it sent to the Iraqi people. The Administration ignored their advice. It is time to shut it down. Fifth, the Administration and the Congress must immediately focus on the role of civilian contractors in Iraq. There are up to 20,000 private contractors operating in Iraq, carrying out military roles from logistics and local army training to guarding installations and convoys. It is stunning that the Defense Department would contract out the interrogation of prisoners of war to private firms. A number of these contractors have been implicated in the abuses of Iraqi prisoners. The legal status of these contractors in war zones is a murky area. How do we hold these contractors accountable? The abuse of prisoners in Iraq has severely damaged our standing in the world and undercut our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. The real tragedy is that it was avoidable. Our troops and the American people have been let down by a failure of leadership. Real leadership is now required to attempt to limit the damage that has been done.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Ha'Atzmaut, the anniversary of the Independence of the State of Israel. It took a horrific, unimaginable Holocaust for the world to finally acknowledge the need to establish a homeland for the Jewish people, to shield it from the persecution and discrimination that it had endured for generations. That recognition came in 1948, and the State of Israel was born. Today it is as important as ever to preserve and safeguard this Jewish national homeland and to ensure the security of Israel and its people. Never again should a people face annihilation. That is why a safe and secure Israel is in everyone's interest. We must continue to strive for a settlement of conflict in the Middle East that guarantees the right of all people in the region to live in peace. That is my wish on this day as we celebrate the independent State of Israel.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Donald Rollert, a veteran and dedicated civil servant who recently retired from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Donald Rollert was born in Colorado, grew up in Kansas, and graduated from the Coast Guard Academy. During the Second World War, he served as an officer on an LST in the South Pacific and was subsequently stationed in Italy. Before returning to the United States and civilian life, Don married his wife Myriam in Trieste, Italy. He did post- graduate work at Columbia University and worked for several companies as an engineer. While working at Mergenthaler Linotype Corporation in the 1960's, he assumed responsibility for developing one of the first electronic composition systems. When Don came to the Government Printing Office, he continued developing composition software. He is the author of the GPO's current composition program, Microcomp, which is producing the Congressional Record, bills, hearings, and many other government publications including the Federal Register and related publications. As the author of Microcomp, Don Rollert is largely responsible for the GPO's success in the modern publishing world. His hard work, determination, and decision making over the years have made GPO a leader in modern publishing technologies. A recently published book about the men and women who have served in WWII refers to those people as the ``greatest generation.'' Don Rollert is and deserves to be a member of the greatest generation. Retiring at the age of 82, Don looks forward to spending more time with his wife, children, and grandchildren. He also looks forward to having more time for building models of early sailing ships, traveling, and working at his computer. I join with his many colleagues and friends in wishing Don Rollert a long and happy retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent and distinguished public servant, Mr. William R. Stewart. Mr. Stewart served as Chief Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the first African American to do so. For his service, Mr. Stewart was a recipient of the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, the only NLRB lawyer to receive this honor its entire 69-year history. Upon bestowing this tribute, President Clinton spoke of Mr. Stewart as ``instrumental in winning national labor law cases that have had a major impact on American workers.'' The President further noted Mr. Stewart's contributions, such as ``protecting the rights of the blind workers and preserving the ability of workers to vote by mail in union elections.'' Mr. Stewart was born in Terre Haute, Indiana. He graduated from Indiana University with a bachelor's degree in government in 1954 and was elected Phi Beta Kappa. An ROTC student, upon graduation, he was commissioned in the Army as a second lieutenant. He served in Germany in an armored division and was later selected to be the courts and boards officer and assistant adjunct of a combat command of more than 5,000 men. Upon completing his tour of duty in 1957, he returned to his home State to complete law school at Indiana University. During his time at Indiana Law, he was elected to the Order of the Coif, an honor society for law school graduates from the 77 member schools. Immediately following law school, Mr. Stewart worked as an attorney for the Atomic Energy Commission, though he soon joined NLRB where he served with great distinction for most of his professional career. On February 16, 2004, William R. Stewart passed away at the age of 71, in Washington D.C. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt sympathy to Mr. Stewart's family, including his two brothers Stanley and Richard. My district, and the Nation, lost a great public servant with the passing of William R. Stewart. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. William B. Gould IV. Mr. Gould was Chairman of the NLRB during Mr. Stewart's final years there, as well as his dear friend. He has provided me with a copy of the eulogy he delivered for his friend, and I respectfully ask that it be included in the Record. Memorial to William R. Stewart--Remarks of William B. Gould IV, Arlington National Cemetery February 27, 2004 First, allow me to extend my heartfelt condolences to Bill Stewart's brother here in attendance, Stanley Stewart, Bill's nieces, Standish Stewart, Sherry Weaver, and Belinda Jones, and his nephew, Kent Bell. For the many who knew him or had some contact with him--and most especially for those many who loved him--William Rufus Stewart incorporated many characteristics in that multi- dimensional personality of his. Two features override all of them--his commitment to excellence--this is what prompted President Bill Clinton to characterize his contributions to the NLRB to be ``unparalleled''--and his compassion for humanity and life. Every February or March for the past five years subsequent to my departure from Washington, Bill would come to California and visit with my wife and myself at our home on the Stanford campus. Here he had a set routine which he would follow with or without the two of us. Sometimes he would sit in on a class or two and provide me with a good critique--just as he would do here in our Washington days together. Bill would begin each morning--and sometimes the afternoon as well--with a long walk through our beautiful campus, returning full of observations about the trees and flowers and other things that he had seen along the way. On one occasion he and my wife spotted a coyote sauntering calmly through an open park, and this quickly became one of those stories which he loved to tell and retell. Usually he timed his visit with the Stanford baseball games at our lovely Sunken Diamond. This past rainy weekend the University of Texas was in town and it made me think of Bill's comments about a splendidly executed extra inning Stanford-Texas baseball game two years ago, again in the winter rain which turned on and off while we sat soaking in our seats. For almost a year, Bill had been telling me about an outstanding left-handed pitcher from his hometown of Terre Haute, Indiana, whom Stanford had snatched away, he said, from professional baseball. Ironically, on this past Sunday, there he was, as Bill had described him, pitching a magnificent three-hitter against hard-hitting Texas in his very first college start. I wanted to call Bill on the phone and I thought of how, at least until a little more than a month ago, we had planned to see that game together. There were certain trigger points for which Bill could produce predictably automatic and voluble reactions, one of them being Indiana basketball and its former coach Bobby Knight. We often laughed together when I pushed some of his buttons by mentioning an individual for whom I knew he had either great devotion, as was the case with Knight, or those individuals and organizations for whom Bill possessed little regard and occasional scorn--and he would always oblige me with an uproarious reaction to my button pushing. The most fun in those exchanges was the knowledge that Bill knew that I was putting him on and then would oblige me without fail with one of those patented Bill Stewart eruptions. Just as Bill's views were not capable of modification on matters like Bobby Knight, it was difficult to get him to back down in most discussions or arguments--and we had a few of those--about the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board, and society generally. But he was nothing if not intellectually curious, and that trait led to a good deal of back and forth. The fact that he was always imaginative and probing in his search for new approaches as well as so resolute, served me well as both Chairman and his friend. Our mutual friend, Professor Herman Levy of Santa Clara Law School, who served with Bill at the Board in the '60s as well, has told me how Bill, as the assertive and sometimes disputatious president of the NLRB Professional Association in the '60s, insisted that Herman be excluded as a supervisor. Herman--and Bill and I often spoke of Herman's unyielding points of view--was of the view that he was not a supervisor and ultimately the two of them were to devise a sensibly balanced compromise whereby Herman was able to sit in on the union meetings, but not to have a vote--and perhaps not, given Bill's perspective, a voice either! I can remember in the period of 1963-64, when Bill and I first became friends, his attendance at the newly-opened Arena Theater and his love for opera and classical music. The arts were a big part of Bill's life. Whenever I went to exhibits or concerts in Washington, he would gently needle me, implying that I was only a superficial philistine. There was so much laughter and conviviality with him in this kind of back-and-forth banter. Indeed, laughter is one of the things that I treasure most about Bill. So many times my confidential assistant, Mary Ann Sawyer, and I would be smiling at one another as Bill and Al Wolff or some other individual would be howling at something that they found amusing! The loud and sustained laughter would frequently cascade into the anteroom where Mary Ann sat--and through my adjacent office as well. As someone who loved the arts, it seemed appropriate that Bill also had a great sense of the dramatic--I always remember his description of his first meeting with a former Board member with whom Bill was trying to negotiate some kind of arrangement prior to my arrival in Washington. Bill would go into a semi-crouch, putting his hands up near his face: ``We were circling one another like two cats in a ring,'' said Bill on countless occasions in describing this meeting. Incidentally, Bill accomplished that mission, and he and the individual in question soon became the best of friends. Bill possessed the very highest professional standards and this was one of the reasons why he was so valuable to me and to the NLRB. He elevated the level of what would be acceptable for me and the staff. He best exemplified public service as a high and noble calling. In reviewing any of my opinions or speeches, Bill would always flyspeck them carefully, and quoting his former colleague on the General Counsel side, Bob Allen, he would say: ``We have to make sure that it is pretty,'' i.e., that all the i's should be dotted and the t's should be crossed (Bill would always be careful to say, ``This is what Bob Allen would say''). This kind of meticulous care is one of the reasons why President Clinton praised his work so unqualifiedly. As many of you know, Bill was the first and only NLRB employee in its entire 69-year history to receive the highest honor that any civil servant can receive--the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service. Bill was a lawyer par excellence who not only set the highest standards, but was a role model and inspiration to me and innumerable others. He was the first and only African American ever to be appointed to the highest non-Presidential appointee level at the Board, i.e., the rank of Chief Counsel, serving with me from 1994 to 1997. And he was a tower of strength, expertise and wisdom for me, the NLRB, and the United States government. In the tumultuous '90s when our Board was under such attack from within and from without by many who do not believe in the purposes of the Act, Bill, along with the wonderful Mary Ann Sawyer whom Bill identified for me and recruited, were the nerve center of the agency. More than anyone that I know, they kept the Board going in its most difficult days. Bill was the gatekeeper through which everyone and everything went. Bill's public service was vital to the rule of law in labor-management relations. But there is another dimension to Bill Stewart which is even more important and goes to the essence of this good man. Last year when Bill came to visit us in California, he could not come in February or March as was his practice. The reason was that he was helping two friends who themselves appeared to be in their last days and who thus were in the midst of enormous and considerable distress. Bill had to be there for them, and thus could not come to California until June. That was the kind of man that he was. When he retired from the NLRB in 1997 and when the parties that we had for him were still fresh in all of our minds, one of his first professional works was to represent a paraplegic in a disability case. And Herman Levy told me when they recently went together on a cruise to Alaska, it was Bill who would make sure that Herman, needing assistance, had a wheelchair and made sure those in charge of the ship were aware of his problems. Bill loved his family. He was proud of his family--his parents and his siblings--and was particularly solicitous of their children. Indeed, he was solicitous and helpful to young people generally, not only in the legal profession and on our staff, but also to my own sons, with whom he would never fail to sit down and talk when they came to Washington and with whom he would sometimes meet when he was on the Los Angeles portion of his annual California visit. Bill Stewart was devoted to Indiana University as well. It gave him his start in life. He often spoke fondly of his work as personal assistant to Herman B. Wells, Chancellor of the University. Thus, it was meet and right that in 1999 Bill was elected to the Indiana University Academy of Law Alumni Fellows, the most distinguished honor for an Indiana law graduate--and that he was to enjoy a reunion with Mr. Wells at that time. Bill never stopped grieving for his deceased partner, Bill Dresser, who accompanied him when we went to the White House in October 1997 to meet President Clinton to commemorate Bill's Award. Counsellor in all senses of the word . . . So often during these past two weeks since Bill's death on February 16, I have awakened in the middle of the night, finding it difficult to believe that he is gone. But on one occasion a week ago, I awoke and began to think about a problem of my own completely unrelated to the terrible events of February 16--but which seemed almost equally insoluble. I decided that it would be important for me to speak to someone about it. It was 5 a.m. and my mind automatically focused upon area code 301 and the number for Bill's home. That was my first instinct. I have often thought that most of us will be extremely fortunate if we are remembered beyond one or two or five years subsequent to our respective deaths. Bill will not be forgotten.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this week, two important pieces of legislation that will help Federal employees advanced in the House of Representatives. House Resolution 581, which expresses Congress's support for parity between military and civilian Federal employee pay raises, passed the House 2 days ago with strong bipartisan support. Yesterday, H.R. 3751, which requires the Administration to present options for expanding the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) to include greater access to dental, vision and hearing benefits, received a unanimous vote in the Government Reform Committee. Congressional efforts to correct pay disparities have been frustrated by the budgetary priorities of the Bush Administration, which has for years shown that pay parity is not a priority. Indeed, the administration's 2005 budget includes a 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel, but only a 1.5 percent increase for civilian employees. The strong bipartisan support for pay parity in the House, even in the face of presidential opposition, illustrates the commitment many members of Congress feel for ensuring that we acknowledge the service and sacrifice made by both military and civilian personnel. This week's Government Reform Committee vote in support of H.R. 3751 is also an important step forward for federal employees. Dental and vision problems can often be as disruptive to the lives of federal employees and their families as other health concerns. Yet vision and dental needs are not covered by many federal benefit plans. Serious, developing dental and vision problems are not often obvious to the casual observer and can sometimes only be detected by a physician. Despite its potential impact on general health, dental and vision insurance, in most cases, must currently be assumed by the federal employee alone at great personal expense. H.R. 3751 requires the Office of Personnel Management to explore ways to make affordable vision, hearing and dental care available to all federal employees. Federal employee jobs, services and benefits have been the subject of much congressional activity lately. At every turn, the Bush Administration has fought efforts to protect the rights of federal employees and opposed the principle of pay parity in annual compensation. Fortunately, thanks to the success of these two bills, there is good news for federal employees this week.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome here today Reverend Cindy Baskin from my congressional district, and I want to thank her for delivering a beautiful prayer. Today, March 31, is the last day of Women's History Month; and I think it is especially fitting that we end this month with a prayer from a woman guest chaplain. I also want to note that our House attending physician, Dr. John Eisold, is a member of Reverend Baskin's congregation; and I thank him for suggesting that Reverend Baskin be here this morning for our opening prayer. Let me read what members of Reverend Baskin's congregation have said about her: ``Cindy serves with strong leadership, inspired vision, and endless energy. She encourages us to use our talents in service to the community, while ministering to the congregation as pastor, priest, and friend.'' I thank Reverend Baskin for inspiring us here this morning through her prayer and inspiring us to serve our Nation, our community, and reach out to others in the world. Thank you, Reverend Baskin for being here this morning and opening the House of Representatives.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 1821, after nearly 400 years of Ottoman rule, Greece became an independent state. But, even before there was a state, the influence of the Greek people was well established by their countless contributions to art, sport, culture, literature and government. No Congressional recognition of Greek Independence Day, can be made without an acknowledgment of the profound contribution the Greek people have made to the pursuit of democratic ideals here in the United States and the world over. Every school-aged child is familiar with the story of how the Founding Fathers modeled the framework for American government on principles first laid down and discussed by the ancient Greeks thousands of years ago. Thomas Jefferson called ancient Greece, ``the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' Today, as we meed to celebrate Greek Independence Day, and celebrate the Greek-American heritage that continues to strengthen our communities and enrich our society, let us also recognize the influence the Greek people, past and present, have had on the strength of our democracy. Greece and the United States are bound by history, mutual respect, and common ideals. In the coming year, the world will converge on Greece to participate in the Olympic Games, the largest pageant of ahtletic skill and competitive spirit on the planet. On Greek Independence Day, as we pause to reflect on the many ways Greece continues to touch our lives, I encourage all Americans to celebrate the contributions the people of Greece and Greek Americans have made to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, and I want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for his leadership and the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee). And I want to tell the gentlemen a little good news/bad news story; and we had some good news this morning, which is that a group of bipartisan Members of Congress from the Chesapeake watershed States got together and established the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the greatest national treasures in the United States, indeed in the world; and so we got together to pledge ourselves to work together to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and take the steps that are necessary. But this Bush administration proposal on mercury that the gentleman has drawn our attention to takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It takes us backwards. We all know that mercury consumption advisories have been issued throughout the United States; and, in fact, mercury contamination of fish is, of course, is the number one cause for human contamination, human poisoning. In my State of Maryland, we have had statewide advisories. In Pennsylvania and other States in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, we had a Statewide advisory. And we know that recent studies have shown that Maryland is one of the States with the highest deposition of mercury in the country due to airborne mercury emitted from power plants. And this, as the gentleman has said, is a problem that is not unique to Maryland and to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. It is a problem up in Maine. It is a problem in Washington State. It is a problem around our country. And currently advisories for mercury are increasing faster than any other pollutant. They now represent 60 percent of all water bodies with fish advisories nationwide. So this is a national problem. It is a problem obviously in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which we have a particular interest in locally; but it is a problem throughout the country. And as my colleague from Maine was pointing out, we have an administration now that when it comes to issues of science, when it comes to issues of the environment, really the White House has become an evidence-free zone. I mean, we can get scientists, we can get Nobel laureates, we can get a consensus of opinion throughout the scientific community coming down on one side of an issue; and yet time after time the administration throws out the facts, buries its head in the sand, and decides to go the other way. We understand that mercury poisoning is something that affects people throughout this country. Of course, pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable to mercury poisoning. And so this idea that the EPA now has, the Bush administration EPA, of establishing a cap-in- trade program for mercury, which may be a very acceptable proposal for less poisonous contaminants, but when they have a cap-in-trade program for something as poisonous as mercury, what they are saying to those people who happen to live right next door to the power plant that is emitting mercury is it is okay if they get poison; as long as their power plant buys credits from somewhere else, buys the right to pollute, they can put as much mercury into the air around their plant as they want. That is a health disaster for people in the area. Again, it is one thing to treat less poisonous pollutants that way; but to take a hazardous pollutant like mercury and say go ahead and pollute, go ahead and contaminate the water in a particular area, it is going to mean serious health problems for women and children in that area and throughout the country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and he is exactly right. The problem with this is we need to make sure that the American people understand what is happening. That is why I am glad that he is doing this. Because we have an administration that goes out and does a lot of photo ops with beautiful landscapes in the background. There is a lot of rhetoric about the importance of preserving our environment, protecting areas like the Chesapeake Bay; but while we have this great public face of environmental protection on the one hand, on the other hand, when it comes to the regulatory process, people are very busy unraveling protections that have existed for years and years and years, and that is what this regulatory assault is about. It is one of many that has taken place in recent years, and it is very important that we put a stop to it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. I mean, the way most people go about planning when they are making major decisions is to take a look at the facts and then figure out what the policy is based on the facts, not to come down with a politically motivated policy and then try and make up the facts to fit that policy, and this administration has gotten in trouble in many ways with respect to that approach. You really do not want to make a mistake when it comes to something like mercury, because if you make a mistake now, it is something that is going to live with us for many, many years to come. Let us just take the Chesapeake Bay for an example. When it comes to nitrogen, when you are cleaning up nitrogen in the bay, if more nitrogen is going in today, and we take strong efforts, for example, in the bay watershed to get rid of that nitrogen, we can do it. We have to work hard to do it. Mercury, on the other hand, is something that stays in the ecosystem for a very long time. We cannot get rid of it overnight. And it stays in the ecosystem, it gets into organisms, it gets into fish and then, of course, it gets into the human food chain and gets into the food we eat, and then eventually can get into the brains of developing fetuses and of children. This is a very, very serious issue, obviously; and it is one where we want to make sure we get the science right, we do our homework before we leap off the cliff. I appreciate again my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), drawing the attention of this body to this issue. Hopefully, we will pull the administration back from the precipice on this and, more important than saving the administration from a bad decision is saving the American people from what could be a very, very serious health problem in years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a deceitful resolution not for what it says, but for what it does not say. It is unfortunate that our Republican colleagues would once again use an issue that unites all Americans--support for our troops--into a naked political stunt that attempts to rewrite history in a divisive manner. The American people should understand that the Republican leadership in this House has prevented any Member of Congress from offering any change to this resolution. The main defect of this resolution is that it tells only a small part of the story about Iraq. In an obvious attempt to change the subject, the resolution contains absolutely no mention of the primary justification President Bush gave for going to war in Iraq--the alleged existence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the resolution attempts to justify the decision for war on humanitarian grounds alone. It cites, among other things, Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iraq's Kurdish citizens in 1988. No one needs to tell me about Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses against the Kurds. In 1988, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, I traveled to the Iraq-Turkish border as a staffer on the U.S. Senate Foreign relations Committee with my colleague Peter Galbraith. At that time, thousands of Kurds were fleeing across the border to seek refuge in Turkey. We interviewed hundreds of those refugees and documented Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people. Our report formed the basis for legislation to impose economic sanctions against Iraq for its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. The bill passed the United States Senate; but the Reagan Administration, which included many of the key officials now in the Bush administration, opposed and helped block that sanctions legislation from passing. I challenge anyone to explain to me how you can oppose economic sanctions in 1988 in response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against civilians and then today turn around and say that those same actions are the reason the United States went to war in 2003. Moreover, if Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own people was the reason for military action, we should have finished the job during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq has not used chemical weapons since 1988, since the time my colleague Peter Galbraith and I went to the Iraq-Turkish border at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. But 3 years later in 1991, not only did we not remove Hussein in Baghdad, but at the end of the war the United States looked the other way for many days while Saddam Hussein turned his guns on the Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. This history exposes the hypocrisy of this attempt to rewrite history in order to change the argument for going to war in Iraq in 2003. The fact is that the Bush Administration told the American people that we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein currently possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States. When the U.N. inspectors asked for additional time to determine whether Iraq possessed stockpiles of such weapons, the Administration rejected the request and went to war. We now know that--based on the report of Chief U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay, that to date no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found in Iraq. This resolution says nothing about the serious blow to U.S. credibility and security around the world caused by the Administration's misuse and abuse of intelligence information. The Republican leadership would like to equate support for our troops in Iraq with support for the President's decision to go to war in Iraq. But my constituents and the American people deserve better than the false choice presented by this resolution. I will not play the game of having to support the President's views on Iraq in order to express support our troops. I continue to stand behind our troops and am grateful for their valiant service. I recently returned from a trip to Iraq where I had the honor of meeting with many of the men and women in our Armed Forces. I expressed to them the gratitude of the American people for their sacrifice and for their service to our country. It is a disservice to our troops that the Republican leadership here would exploit them to attempt to gain partisan political advantage. I have crafted an alternative resolution that presents the part of the story that the Republican leadership would like the American people to forget. This substitute resolution does not change a single word of the underlying resolution. However, it presents a fuller picture of the real story behind the decision to go to war in Iraq. Every one of the ``Whereas'' clauses in this alternative resolution is factually accurate and incontrovertible. Why does the Republican leadership want to hide from these facts? Why does it want to prevent the American people from knowing the full story? Why will it not allow this substitute to be voted on? Mr. Speaker, I submit this alternative resolution for the Record. Substitute Resolution Proposed by Representative Chris Van Hollen Relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people, and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces and the failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes against humanity, systematically violating the human rights of Iraqis and citizens of other countries; Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation; Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them; Whereas in September 1988, the United States Senate unanimously passed legislation (S. 2763) to impose economic sanctions against the regime of Saddam Hussein for the use of chemical weapons against its Kurdish citizens, but the bill failed after the Reagan Administration opposed the legislation and threatened a veto; Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's regime, have been found in Iraq; Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population, with victims often raped in front of their families; Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees and caused an ecological catastrophe; Whereas in 1991, explaining the Bush Administration decision not to advance on Baghdad, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated, ``Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?''; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105- 338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein; Whereas on September 8, 2002, Secretary of State Powell said, ``There is no doubt that he [Hussein] has chemical weapons stocks.''; Whereas on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, ``We do know, with absolute certainty, that he [Hussein] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.''; Whereas on September 8, 2002, Secretary Powell said, ``With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons, and he is probably continuing to try to develop more.''; Whereas on October 2, 2002, President Bush said, ``The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.''; Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19, 2003, the United States initiated military operations in Iraq; Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring the Iraq ``has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors'' Whereas on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, ``The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.''; Whereas on February 5, 2003, Secretary Powell said, ``Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan. . . .''; Whereas on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that: There is ``no indication of nuclear activities . . . nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites . . . There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.''; Whereas on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei concluded that the documents purporting to show a uranium purchase in Niger provided to the IAEA by the United States were unsubstantiated and likely forged. He told the United Nations Security Council that ``Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.''; Whereas according to UNMOVIC'S 13th Quarterly Report, between November 27, 2002 and March 18, 2003, the 731 inspections conducted by UNMOVIC did not reveal any ``evidence of continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items.''; Whereas in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors requested additional time to determine whether Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; Whereas the Bush Administration rejected the United Nations request for additional time, to complete the mission; Whereas on March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney said, ``. . . we know he [Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.''; Whereas on March 16, 2003, President Bush said, ``The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.''; Whereas on March 25, 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, ``The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed.''; Whereas on October 2, 2003, Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay said, ``Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced--if not entirely destroyed--during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections . . . Our efforts to collect and exploit intelligence on Iraq's chemical weapons program have thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 CW stocks and CW agent production. . . .''; Whereas on October 2, 2003, David Kay said, ``. . . to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.''; Whereas to date, despite an extensive search by the United Nations and the United States no chemical, biological, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction have been found: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; however, the main question for the American people is not whether the United States is better off without Saddam Hussein, but whether the United States is better off for having gone to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein; (2) finds that, despite the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, it is premature to conclude that going to war in Iraq has made the United States safer; indeed, the weight of the evidence to date suggests that President Bush's approach to Iraq has not made the United States safer; (3) affirms the findings of former Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay, that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq; (4) affirms that no evidence has been found to support the statements made by president Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice between September 8, 2002 and the present that are cited in the ``Whereas'' clause above; (5) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime; (6) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; (7) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service; and (8) extends condolences to the families of the American forces who have been killed in Iraq.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Col. George ``Bud'' Day and the members of the Class Act Group who have worked so hard to restore health care to America's military retirees. I salute them for their grassroots efforts that helped make Tricare for Life the law of the land, and I commend them for coming together on February 17, 2004, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, to develop a strategy to convince Congress to make good on more of the broken promises. I especially appreciate their efforts to enact H.R. 3474, the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, a bipartisan bill that I was proud to introduce. The purpose of the recent meeting takes on a greater urgency because we must prepare to honor a new generation of veterans who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. 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. Generations of young men and women were recruited into the uniformed services with the promise that heath care would be there for them when they retired after serving a career in service. But while these career soldiers put their lives on the line for our country, the government did not keep its end of the contract. Finally, the Courts have laid to rest the matter of who is responsible for making good on those promises--the United States Congress. The Class Act Group convention is in the best tradition of American democracy--they are joining together to petition their elected representatives to do the right thing and make good on promises the government made to our military retirees. As veterans, they have already set a good example for our young people by protecting our freedoms and rights. And by organizing this grassroots movement they are doing it again by exercising those freedoms and rights. I send my congratulations to the Class Act Group for a job well done! I will work with CAG and anyone else who shares our goal, to see that Congress does Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Woolsey amendment, and I want to begin by making it clear what this amendment is not about. It is not about the value of the Community Services Block Grant. That block grant is extremely important to millions of Americans in thousands of communities around this land. From Meals on Wheels to child care, to job training, to early education, community action partnerships provide critical support to the communities they serve. Nor is this a debate about those provisions in the underlying bill that strengthen the accountability and local control in the program. Finally, this amendment is not about whether faith-based organizations should be able and allowed to participate in Federal programs designed to help those in need. They should and they do. And those who seek to confuse this conversation and suggest that those organizations will no longer receive Federal support are misleading the American people in this debate today. So what is this all about? What this amendment does is affirm the critical role of faith-based organizations in providing services in the fight against poverty while at the same time preserving the principles of religious tolerance that are enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Woolsey amendment is identical to the underlying bill in all respects except one. What this amendment does is prohibits taxpayer-funded job discrimination based on religion. Period. It is that simple. Should applicants for federally funded jobs be evaluated based on their credentials, their experience, their performance and merit, or should they be fired and hired based on their religion or some religious test? Imagine someone opening their local newspaper, seeing an ad there for a federally funded job, someone who has devoted their life's work to trying to teach young children in early education, and they are excited about it, they open it up and they say, here's the description, help young children, but, by goodness, only Christians need apply; or, within Christianity, only Catholics or only Baptists need apply. This provides a green light for that kind of discrimination. How can we ask individuals, individuals who may be listening to this debate around the country, who pay their fair share of taxes to support this community effort, to support the programs that we are talking about to help the poor? How can we ask them who have paid those taxes to the Federal Government to not be allowed to take a job with an organization that helps in that regard because of their religion? That is what the other side asks us to do. In fact, the arguments put forth by the Republicans on this issue today should be troubling to every American. They say that faith-based organizations that take Federal dollars must be able to hire only their own members of their own faith in order to do a good job of providing secular services under this Federal program. It is in their committee report. They have said it on the floor today. Think about what they are saying. These Federal funds in this legislation provide services to help those in poverty. The mission is to provide housing for those without housing. To provide food and nutrition for those who have none. What they are saying is that in order for a faith-based organization to effectively use those funds for those purposes, you have to shut the door on employees of other faiths. I find it very ironic, Mr. Chairman, that today we are asking the peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Sunnis, the Shia, the Turkmen, the Christians, to come together for the common good, while at the same time here we are saying that in order to fulfill the common good, we have to divide people based on religion. What a terrible message.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House of Representatives to the upcoming dedication of the new home in Washington, D.C. of the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital (JPDS-NC) and to pay tribute to the contributions of Dr. Robert and Kay Schattner in enabling JPDS-NC to dedicate their new home. On Sunday, December 21 JPDS-NC community will dedicate their new building at 6045 16th St., NW, Washington, DC. After a three year hiatus JPDS-NC has returned to Washington, DC. This makes JPDS-NC the only Jewish Day school in our Nation's Capital. JPDS-NC is an independent, pluralistic, co-educational Jewish day school for students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. It is particularly fitting that this Jewish day school is moving to this address because this same building was constructed to be the home of the Hebrew Academy from 1951-1976. JPDS-NC will add greatly to the cultural richness and diversity of the Nation's Capital. It is particularly pleasing to recognize and pay tribute to my constituents Robert and Kay Schattner's for helping make this new building possible. Their $2 million contribution to this school building facilitated JPDS-NC moving back into the District. When this building is dedicated later this month it will be named the Kay and Robert Schattner Center. This generous contribution is not the first major charitable gift of the Schattners. Only last year the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine dedicated the Robert Schattner Center in Philadelphia. The Schattner family has deep roots in the Metropolitan Washington area. Kay Schattner grew up in Washington, DC and once hosted a popular local radio program named ``Kay's Korner.'' Her work earned her the title of National Radio Star of the Year in 1959. She also worked for the Washington Daily News as a columnist. Robert Schattner has had a distinguished career as a dentist, entrepreneur, and inventor. He developed the widely used throat spray, Chloraseptic as well as other medical products. He currently serves as president of Sporicidin International, a company which develops medical, dental and household antimicrobial products. Mr. Speaker, Kay and Robert Schatttner are the type of civic minded couple that has made this country great. It is my honor to rise and pay tribute to their contribution which will allow a great educational institution to thrive in our Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record an article published on 9/11/03 in the Washington Jewish Week which announced the Schattner gift and the move of the JPDS-NC. [From the Washington Jewish Week] JPDS Gets $2 Million Gift Donation, Is Bethesda Couple's Largest to Jewish Cause (By Teddy Kider) Robert and Kay Schattner have had quite a year. Twenty minutes after students and officials of the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital (JPDS-NC) raised the flag and hung mezuzot at their new home in the District last week, the Bethesda couple signed on to contribute $2 million to the facility, naming it the Kay and Robert Schattner Center. The facility, the former Owl School on 16th Street N.W. in the District, provided JPDS-NC with its first permanent home in the District since the school became independent of Adas Israel Congregation in 1999. ``What interested us most is the school accommodates all sectors of Judaic affiliations and backgrounds,'' said Robert Schattner. ``You can be chasidic or Reform, and the school will take you and accommodate you.'' The Schattners' gift to JPDS-NC comes less than one year after the Nov. 1 dedication of the Robert Schattner Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The Schattners' contribution, the largest in the history of Penn's dental school, provided the campus with a $22 million, 70,000-square-foot building that connected two previously built structures and created the largest dental school facility in the United States. Robert Schattner is an alumnus of the dental school. With the finishing touches still being completed in Philadelphia, the Schattners were reluctant to take on another project. ``We just have too many involvements,'' said Robert Schattner. Last spring, the Schattners were approached by Lisa Silver, a friend who has three children at JPDS-NC and knew that the couple might want to contribute to a Jewish day school. Silver was initially turned down, but was persistent in showing the Schattners what JPDS-NC had to offer the community. ``I say this as a good thing: she's a great saleswoman,'' quipped Robert Schattner. Eventually, the Schattners decided that providing funds for the 16th Street campus let them support a worthy cause while maintaining a minimal involvement with the already-completed building. The $2 million gift fulfilled more than half of the JPDS-NC Coming Home Campaign's goal of $3.8 million, and will be used to support new programs like a prekindergarten and an Intergenerational Jewish Arts Program. A dedication ceremony will be held in November. ``We are so grateful to Kay and Robert Schattner for stepping forward with their $2 million lead gift to launch our Coming Home Campaign,'' said former president and chair of the campaign Margaret Hahn Stern. ``The first step is always the hardest, and we hope that many others will now be inspired to join the Schattners at whatever level they can afford. . . . Widespread participation in this campaign will firmly position our premiere Jewish day school in the nation's capital.'' The Schattners may have no previous ties to JPDS-NC, but they are deeply rooted in the Washington community. Kay Schattner, who grew up in Washington, D.C., has a background in the media, having worked on a one-hour daily radio broadcast called ``Kay's Korner''from 1953 to 1961. The show earned her the title of National Radio Star of the Year in 1959. She also worked for the Washington Daily News, writing the ``Gourmet Guide'' dining supplement from 1960 to 1969 and producing columns for the paper from 1960-1970. A member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and of American Women in Radio & Television, Kay Schattner also did interviews for Curtis Circulations, which enabled her to be the self-proclaimed ``only person to interview Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Hoffa in the same afternoon.'' Robert Schattner grew up in Bronx, N.Y., and earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the City University of New York before going to Penn's dentistry school. While practicing dentistry in Queens, N.Y., he developed Chloraseptic, a throat spray. After 10 years in private practice, Schattner created The Chloraseptic Company and moved to the District, where he sold the revolutionary product to The Norwich Pharmacal Company. Robert Schattner now serves as president of Sporicidin International, which develops medical, dental and household antimicrobial products, and he's been involved in several attempts to purchase sports teams in the area or move teams to the area. Recently, Schattner introduced Masticide, a new product that treats mastitis, or the inflammation of a cow's utter, and is supposed to help farmers who annually lose about $3 billion due to mastitis in their herds. While Robert Schattner has been honored for his work outside of the office by the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, the President's Committee for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation and the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind, his wife has worked with numerous organizations to better the community, including heart, cancer and multiple sclerosis associations.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, with regret, I rise in opposition to the Medicare conference report now before us. Rather than giving seniors the simple, comprehensive and affordable prescription drug benefit they deserve, this bill recklessly undermines the Medicare program, threatens many seniors' existing drug coverage and fails to bring down skyrocketing drug costs. Let's be clear: This is not about whether we ought to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Democrats--including myself-- have been calling for a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit for years. Now that the Republican party has dropped its historic opposition to modernizing Medicare, there is broad consensus--at least rhetorically--on the importance of this goal. Additionally, this is not about whether doctors should receive a positive payment update for services rendered under Medicare. I think everyone in this chamber understands we could pass a free-standing positive payment update for physicians today--and by a wide margin. Frankly, I would be first in line--because I don't think you can ask providers to participate in a program without adequate reimbursement. But if we were really interested in giving doctors a fair reimbursement rate, we would end this untenable ritual of dodging the next round of scheduled payment cuts with stop-gap, band-aid measures and finally get around to fixing the obviously flawed Medicare reimbursement formula once and for all. Unfortunately, that's not what we are doing here today. Instead, after months of secretive negotiations and much highly publicized bickering, the majority is now presenting this House with a prescription drug bill that blatantly violates the first tenet of responsible medicine: Do No Harm. If this conference report is enacted into law, as many as 7 million seniors will be forced to pay more for Medicare--unless they agree to give up their doctor and join an HMO, according to analysis done by the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committee minority staff. Additionally, over 2 million retirees who already have private prescription drug coverage stand to lose that coverage, according to the same report. That is also the conclusion reached by the former Republican Majority Leader of the House Dick Armey, who called on Congress to reject this misguided bill in today's Wall Street Journal, saying in part: ``(T)his bill is going to cost millions of seniors their current prescription drug coverage.'' In my home state of Maryland, an estimated 60,000 Medicare beneficiaries could lose their existing private prescription drug benefits, according to analysis based on CBO data prepared by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee minority staff. Moreover, similar analysis from the Senate HELP Committee minority staff using CRS data projects that 75,000 Maryland Medicaid beneficiaries will pay more than they do now for the prescription drugs they need. This legislation puts seniors with existing coverage--and the future of the entire Medicare program--at risk. And for what? A prescription drug benefit that--after all the premiums and deductibles and co-pays and coverage caps and out-of-pocket costs are accounted for--provides $1 of assistance for every $4 that seniors with significant drug costs will still have to pay themselves. There are smarter, more efficient ways to spend $400 billion on a Medicare prescription drug plan. For starters, we should eliminate the $12 billion subsidy being offered the private insurance industry as an inducement to participate in the Medicare market. If PPOs and HMOs are really more efficient than traditional than traditional Medicare in delivering high quality care at a lower cost, they don't need a $12 billion taxpayer handout to do it. Additionally, we should scrap the Administration's ill-conceived and deceptively named ``Health Security Accounts'', which amount to little more than a $6 billion tax break for the wealthy. And finally, we should get serious about making drugs affordable for seniors and for all Americans--through such common sense steps as permitting re-importation from our industrialized trading partners and allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare's 41 million beneficiaries--something the bill before us today actually forbids the government to do. The ultimate value of allowing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate for lower prices will obviously turn on the outcome of those particular negotiations. But we know from the experience of the Veterans Administration--which does currently have the ability to negotiate for lower prices--that the savings can run upwards of 60 percent. In the absence of meaningful steps to curb the exorbitant cost of drugs, this bill does more for the pharmaceutical industry than it does for consumers. I believe seniors deserve a real Medicare prescription drug benefit plan; one that is comprehensive, affordable and easy to understand; one that will strengthen Medicare rather weaken it; and one that will not reduce the benefits of seniors who already have prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this fatally flawed conference report, come together on a bipartisan basis and give seniors the meaningful prescription drug assistance they are asking for and need.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the energy bill now before us. It has been said that the end depends upon the beginning--and that has never been more true than it is with this final conference report. It is worth remembering that this initiative began with the now infamous series of secret meetings between Vice President Cheney and his well-connected energy industry lobbyist friends. As a result of those meetings, the Bush administration's initial proposal called for $10 billion of taxpayer giveaways to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Now, after shutting duly appointed Democratic conferees out of the negotiating room, that number has apparently ballooned to over $20 billion. So much for fiscal discipline. The proponents of this legislation like to use words like balanced. For most Americans, the word balanced means roughly equally divided. Between, say, production and conservation. Or fossil fuels and renewables. Or where we are, and where we want to be. By any reasonable measure, this bill fails that test. In fact, this conference report provides an estimated $3 in tax credits to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries for every $1 it allocates to renewables and energy efficiency. So much for balance. Another claim being made by proponents of this bill is that it will create jobs. We do need to create new jobs--especially after this administration's economic performance. But throwing a hodge-podge of special interest tax breaks together and calling it a jobs package is simply not a substitute for sound economic policy--and it won't retrieve the 1.7 million jobs that have been lost since President Bush took office. Which is a shame. Because the right energy bill--one that gives the United States the competitive advantage we really ought to have in the renewable energy and green technologies of the 21st century--would provided a massive boost to the economy, creating up to two million good, high-skilled, high-wage manufacturing, installation and servicing jobs. And these are the kind of jobs that won't go overseas. There's just no reason we should be losing to the Japanese on hybrid cars, or to the Danes on wind turbines, or to the Germans on solar PV. We should be the dominant leader in the world on all these technologies. And if we were, we'd be cleaning up the environment, enhancing our national security, gaining our energy independence and revitalizing our economy--instead of debating this 1,200 page missed opportunity. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is long on unwarranted, special interest goodies for the oil and gas industries. And it falls woefully short on needed investments in the renewable, nonpolluting energy technologies of the future. Instead of a national Renewable Portfolio Standard, we have increased reliance on fossil fuels. Instead of improved automobile efficiency, we have a weakening of the Clean Air Act. Instead of aggressive action to curb energy-associated pollution, we have a liability shield for the polluters. The American people deserve an energy policy worthy of the promise and challenges of the 21st century. We need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and develop clean, less polluting energy sources. This is not that policy. Let's go back to the drawing board and develop an energy policy that reflects the public interest, rather than the special interests.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that today I have introduced a revised version of the ``Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act'' along with Representatives Chet Edwards of Texas, Jeff Miller of Florida, and Duke Cunningham of California. This bipartisan bill addresses recent developments and offers more 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. Over the past year 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. Recruits were promised by their own government that if they served a career of 20 years in military service, 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. This past June the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a November 12, 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 Courts have ruled that legally only Congress can make good on promises made to our military retirees. The Court ruling said, in part, ``We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of 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. 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. But now that the Courts have ruled, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill. I especially want to commend my friend from Texas, Mr. Edwards, for his leadership in introducing H.R. 58 at the beginning of the 108th Congress, and for working with me to bring the Keep Our Promise Act up to date to conform to the court rulings. Our new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises by waiving both the Part B premium and the late fee for World War II and Korean era military retirees. 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 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 new version of 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. This provision is cost-neutral since the government would be covering these health care expenses under one program or the other. 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.