Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of my colleague from Texas and thank him for his leadership on this issue. If there is anything that we as a Nation ought to be able to agree on, it is our common resolve to fight and overcome the scourge of disease and disability. This is not a Democratic issue. This is not a Republican issue. It is an American issue. It is really a human issue. And I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the others who on a bipartisan basis over the years have helped double and really make a commitment to this issue. There are literally tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and their families waiting today, right now as we are talking on this floor, for a cure or a treatment or a breakthrough that will mean the difference between sickness and health, between hope and despair, between independence and suffering, between life and death. How disappointing, then, that after following through on our noble bipartisan effort to double our NIH budget over 5 years, we should be here today talking about an effective freeze on spending, on our investment in basic biological and biomedical research. It is as if we had our collective foot on the pedal together in a race for a cure on all these diseases and then all of a sudden we slam on the brakes. What happened? Did we win the race against these diseases? Of course not. Is there any less need today? No. Are there fewer promising avenues for research? Of course not. In fact, the opposite is true. We are poised, because of our investments over the last 5 years, to make breakthroughs in many areas if we continue to commit the necessary resources. I am very proud of the fact that the National Institutes of Health has its home in my congressional district. We also have a flourishing biomedical research industry developing the medicines of tomorrow. We have just completed mapping the human genome. We are on the threshold of many new discoveries, many new cures, and we have the potential for breakthroughs in so many areas. Now is not the time to rest. The House-passed appropriation calls for just a 2.5 percent increase, the smallest in 18 years, and effectively, when we consider the fact that biomedical inflation is 3.3 percent, it effectively takes us backwards. The Senate came in at 3.5 percent, barely standing still. What are we saying? What kind of message are we sending to our citizens? What are we telling our families? Sorry, the tax cuts were just too important? Sorry, this just is not one of our top priorities anymore? Do not worry, we need to take a breather, there is always next year? That is the wrong message to send. Diseases do not call it quits. Diseases do not say okay, time out for this year, wait until next year. And neither should we. So I congratulate my colleague from Texas for offering this motion. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue that bipartisan support that we have had for the last 5 years in doubling the NIH budget. Let us continue it. Let us make a renewed commitment not to put the brakes on, which is unfortunately what this budget does. Let us take advantage of the investments and the knowledge we have gained over the last 5 years to follow through and come up with cures to so many diseases that plague our citizens.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the DeLauro amendment. Many decades ago, our country did a great and noble thing. We made a commitment as American people that every child in this country, regardless of his or her disability, would get a good education. At that time, the Federal Government promised that it would pick up 40 percent of the costs of providing that education to youngsters with disabilities. But as we are gathered here today, the Federal Government is only paying 19 percent, and the result of that is not only that children with disabilities are not getting the Federal resources that are required for education, but also children without disabilities are suffering, as we are pitting one against the other. Now, we can talk about decades of who is to blame or who promised what, but let us just look at this year. This year we already have a story of sordid, broken promises. I serve on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. This year the chairman of the committee came forward with an authorization bill that would increase the authorization from last year's levels originally by $1.4 billion, to $10.3 billion. Then we in the Committee on Education and the Workforce had a discussion where we, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed that in order to meet our commitment, we had to increase that authorization. So the chairman of the committee went back to the Committee on the Budget and, very proudly, as he should, came back to the Committee on Education and the Workforce and said, ``Look, I have talked to my colleagues, and they have agreed we are not going to increase it by just $1.3 billion; we are going to increase it by $2.2 billion.'' That is what the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce announced. Many of us were skeptical about whether that would be delivered on. We said, ``Let's make that mandatory.'' We had a vote in committee. The chairman of the committee said to The Members, ``Let's not take a vote to make it mandatory, because I have talked to my colleagues on the Republican side on the Committee on the Budget and we have a commitment here. Let us not make this binding.'' We had a vote. It was 10 to 9. Democrats voted in favor in the subcommittee of making it binding, Republicans did not. The same story in the full committee. Well, look where we are today. It turns out that we should have had a binding vote. That would have been the only way to hold the Committee on the Budget and the Republican leadership to its word on this issue. The chairman of the committee said, ``Don't worry about it. Trust us.'' Well, look where that has gotten us. The fact of the matter is, we have let down the American people. We do not need to go back with broken promises for decades. We have multiple broken promises just this year, promises broken to American children. Let me just end by talking about priorities, because what we are seeing here is the budget that was passed at the beginning of the year, that set the road map. Everything after that was on automatic pilot. That budget was premised on huge tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. Now, I do not have any problem if people want to say ``I am for tax cuts,'' and it is okay that for some economic theory that they should go to the wealthiest Americans. But do not say you are for that, and, at the same time, go back to your districts and say, ``We are for full funding for special education,'' as Republicans and Democrats alike do. They all go out and say they are in favor of it. Because you cannot do everything. You cannot have big tax cuts for the wealthiest and come back to this body and fully fund special education. We have to make choices. That is what leadership is all about. If you want to choose higher tax cuts for the wealthy, that is a fine choice. Stand up for it. But do not at the same time come and say we really wanted to do this, but we just could not do it, because we can do it if we make the right choices. We should make the right choices for the America's children. That is why we have got to support this motion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the hateful anti-Semitic slurs made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad in his October 16 address to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In his address, Prime Minister Mohammad called Israel, and I quote, ``the enemy allied with the most powerful nations.'' He also said, and again I quote, that ``the Jews rule the world by proxy'' and that ``the Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews.'' Madam Speaker, there is no place in international diplomacy for this baseless and hateful rhetoric. World leaders have a great responsibility to avoid the use of such incendiary rhetoric that could incite further hatred or violence against any racial or ethnic minority. This kind of hatred and scapegoating, including the blaming of Jews for all the ills of the Muslim world, has no place in civilized society, especially by elected officials. Words and actions, especially at a conference such as this, have far reaching consequences--they not only have the power to make policy, they have the power to change hearts and minds. To blame Israel and the Jewish people for problems and difficulties experienced by other cultures is wrong and has led to senseless bloodshed and violence, including the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s. These words are especially damaging at a crucial time when the Palestinian people and Israel struggle to reach a lasting peace. Actions that inflame tensions between the Islamic and Jewish worlds serve only to make that struggle become complicated and the all-too- elusive peace more difficult to achieve.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from California for this amendment which would provide additional equipment to our troops and still leave our U.S. inspections team with adequate resources for the search. But there is a simple way for the United States to supplement our search efforts by bringing back the highly trained U.N. troops to help in the effort. We have all said the international community should share in the burden and share in the cost. We have an opportunity right now. The U.N. has a team of over 354 inspectors on the ground, trained, ready to go on short notice. What would it cost the United States? Nothing. They are paid for through the U.N. dues. They can also supplement our effort in another way. They can bring us something that money cannot buy, which is credibility. The fact of the matter is that this administration has lost much of its credibility with respect to claims it made of weapons of mass destruction. If we want the international community and the American people to have faith in the findings, it is important that we bring in an independent inspection team to join our efforts. Only then can we convince the international community that any findings they make are legitimate and unbiased. So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this important amendment. It is a win-win.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to immediately obtain the help of the international community in sharing the burden and cost of some of our efforts in Iraq. As part of his $87 billion request, President Bush has asked for an additional $600 million to pay for our team of weapons inspectors in Iraq--known as the Iraq Survey Group--so that they may continue their search for weapons of mass destruction. This team of 1,200 inspectors, led by David Kay, has searched for WMD in Iraq for many months now. The President's request would increase that team to 1,400 inspectors. I had an amendment prepared would allow us to greatly reduce the costs to the American taxpayer of conducting that search and dramatically increase the credibility of any findings made by the inspectors. The Republican majority refused to allow that amendment to come to a vote. I am pleased that Rep. Tauscher has offered this amendment. It provides for better equipment for our troops and leaves $300 million for our inspection team. We can supplement our team by bring back the U.N. inspectors. The President should immediately invite the existing team of United Nations' inspectors--known as UNMOVIC--to participate in the search for WMD in Iraq. The U.N. has a pool of inspectors who have 12 years of experience investigating Iraq's programs and many of whom speak Arabic. According to its most recent report, UNMOVIC has a roster of 354 trained experts available to serve in Iraq at short notice. This important resource should be put to use, allowing us to reduce the size and costs of our team of inspectors. What would it cost us to engage these trained experts? Nothing. The costs of UNMOVIC are borne by the United Nations and paid for through the dues of the member nations. Engaging the U.N. weapons inspectors in the search for WMD would also get us something that money can't buy--credibility. With respect to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration has lost its credibility with the American people and has undermined American credibility in the international community. Before the war, our Secretary of State told the United Nations that the Iraqis were attempting to import nuclear weapons material from Africa. The U.N. inspectors reviewed the evidence and determined the claims were based on forged documents. The U.S. conceded the point and, worse, it turns out that agencies within the U.S. government had already questioned the veracity of the documents. Our Secretary of Defense told the world that we knew the location of the weapons of mass destruction. We now know that was untrue. In the aftermath of the war, the President claimed that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were evidence of a biological weapons program. Our inspection team has recently had to retreat from that claim. Again and again, Administration officials from the President on down have made false claims about Iraqi WMD. Even the Economist magazine, which had been a booster of the war, has stated that the Bush Administration is seen around the world as having its own arsenal of WMD--Wielders of Mass Deception. The only way to restore confidence in the search for WMD is to bring in an impartial team of international inspectors. David Kay, the leader of our team, is stuck in a fundamental contradiction. He wears two hats, serving as both fact finder and salesman for the Administration. No matter how high his personal integrity, this dual role undermines the credibility of any findings his team may make. It is critical to the integrity of the process that independent U.N. weapons inspectors be invited to participate in the search and given the opportunity to independently evaluate any claims made by David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group. The American people should not be asked to spend an additional $600 million to fund a search that is widely perceived to be an effort to provide cover for an Administration that has lost its credibility on this issue at home and abroad.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I opposed the President's decision to rush to war earlier this year. Many of us, at that time, warned of the high costs and difficulties of winning the peace that we face today in Iraq. But the President's poor decisions have painted our country into a difficult corner, and I believe that we now have a responsibility to provide funds and to maintain security on the ground in Iraq and to assist in the reconstruction of that country. Let us not fool ourselves or the American people. It will not just be the tens of billions of dollars that we passed in the bill today. It will require billions more in the years ahead. We also have other responsibilities, to level with the American people and to pay for our efforts in Iraq in a straightforward and up-front manner. The President shirked the first responsibility by failing to prepare the American people for the true costs of the war and winning the peace. Now, he seeks to escape responsibility for the second by putting those costs on our national credit card and running up huge deficits. Every penny of the $87 billion requested by the President is money borrowed from the next generation of Americans. His out-of-sight, out- of-mind approach to such important issues will end up costing our children down the road. We should not be waging war and peace by credit card. If we are willing to pay the price to defeat the scourge of terrorism, we must pay for it in an honest way. While the Bush administration has asked our troops and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, the President has given the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut. That is wrong. It is wrong to pass the buck to the next generation. It is wrong to ask the younger generation, including our troops and their children, to bear the burden alone. And it is wrong to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share. We now face a huge responsibility gap in our government. It is the gap between those who understand that we now have a responsibility to establish stability in Iraq and help rebuild Iraq and who are prepared to pay for it the right way and up front and those who call upon the country in their rhetoric to pay any price in Iraq, but then run from responsibly paying that price. I filed an amendment in this House to fill that responsibility gap. It was an amendment to scale back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to pay for the costs of the bill we passed today. Incredibly, the House leadership prohibited that amendment from even coming to a vote. The President is asking the American people to invest billions of dollars of our money to build schools, hospitals, roads, electric grids and communications systems in Iraq when here at home our Federal, State and local governments are experiencing huge revenue shortfalls in this very difficult economy. The President's budget request of this year falls $9 billion short of what was promised by we, the Federal Government, just a year and a half ago to meet our obligations to America's schoolchildren under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Three out of five children in this country who are eligible for Head Start cannot receive help because of lack of funds. Years ago, the Federal Government pledged to cover 40 percent of ensuring that children with disabilities receive a good education in this country. That was the right thing to do. But today we are only paying 18 percent of what was promised. The same shortfalls occur in health programs, our national transportation infrastructure, job creation initiatives and a range of other important domestic needs. We must meet our needs here at home at the same time that we meet our international responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the globe. We as a Nation, as a people, have enormous resources. We can meet both our domestic needs and our international responsibilities, but we must be prepared to pay for them. If we refuse to pay now for our efforts in Iraq by reducing portions of the tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, it will make it much, much harder to make the investments that we also must make in education, health, transportation and other needs here at home. Already this year when many of us in the Committee on Education and the Workforce called for full funding for No Child Left Behind and for special education programs, we were told we did not have the resources because of the large tax cuts disproportionately weighted to the wealthiest. Adding this $87 billion to the deficit will make it even more difficult to meet those pressing needs. We must pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq. We cannot put everything on our national credit card. The President, I believe, has totally abdicated his leadership responsibilities in this area. Our international responsibilities now require us to pay the price of leadership. Leadership is about setting priorities. The war in Iraq was a war of choice. Regardless of what any of us may think about how that choice was made, we now have a responsibility to pay for the consequences of that choice. The President, by refusing to honestly pay for the war and its aftermath, by refusing to reverse the tax cuts on even the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, refuses to acknowledge the real costs of those choices. There are some who argue that because the President has refused to scale back his tax cuts to pay for the war and its aftermath, those of us who believe we have a responsibility to provide security and aid in reconstruction of Iraq have no alternative but to support the President's request for $87 billion without conditions, that we have to go along with his plan to wage war and peace by credit card. That is a false choice, and, I believe, an irresponsible position. We have an obligation as a Congress to hold the President to a higher standard of leadership. If the President believes, as I do, that we now have an obligation to provide security and help rebuild Iraq, he should have the simple courage to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up some portion of the huge tax cuts to help pay for our efforts in Iraq. The choice is not between doing nothing and doing it the President's way. We should do it the right way.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, last spring many of us warned that unilateral military action against Iraq would open a Pandora's Box; that the President had not prepared the American people for the sacrifices that would be entailed by such an action; and that to act without the support of the international community would seriously jeopardize our ability to win the post-war peace in Iraq. Regretfully, I fear that we were right. And there is little satisfaction in that realization--because the implications for our Nation and the American people are very serious indeed. Our President and his advisors have backed this country into a corner from which there is no easy escape. Now the President has asked this Congress--asked the American people--for an additional $87 billion for the upcoming year to pay primarily for our efforts in Iraq. This request comes on top of the $79 billion already appropriated for these purposes this fiscal year and we can be sure that this will not be the President's last request for funds for Iraq. Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction needs over the next five years have been estimated at over $50 billion--without taking into the account the costs of continued troops deployment there. In deciding whether or not to support this request, I believe we must consider three fundamental questions: How did we get to the situation we are in today? In light of the current state of affairs in Iraq, is the kind of investment the President has requested necessary to enhance our security and protect our national interests? and, If this investment is necessary, has the Administration presented us with a responsible plan that will achieve our key national objectives, both in Iraq and at home? how did we get here? Six months ago, the President informed the American people that Saddam Hussein posed such a dangerous threat to the Untied States that we had to wage war in Iraq to protect our national security. The President and his advisors sold the Iraq war to the American people primarily based on the argument that Saddam Hussein was a ticking time bomb; that he posed a serious and growing danger to America; and that the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate Saddam Hussein. The Administration's argument was based on the marriage of two claims. The first was the claim that Iraq possessed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and would soon obtain a nuclear weapons capability. The second was the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda. Taken together, these claims painted a very ominous picture. While many in the international community--and here at home-- had strong doubts about the nature, magnitude and imminence of the threat posed by Saddam, in its rush to war, the Administration exploited the fears of a post 9/11 America. They portrayed the United Nations Security Council, the U.N. weapons inspectors, most of the international community, and critics here at home as a bunch of spineless procrastinators who wanted to look the other way in the face of a growing Iraqi threat. It now appears that the Administration's two most fundamental arguments for war were false. After interviewing hundreds of former Iraqi military personnel and allowing more than 1,200 of our own inspectors to roam across Iraq over the last six months, we have failed to uncover any actual weapons of mass destruction. The interim report submitted by Dr. David Kay, the Administration's own arms inspector, provides no hard evidence to support the kind of danger President Bush depicted when he made the case for immediate military action. In the absence of evidence of actual weapons, U.S. officials have shifted their rhetoric to focus on ``weapons programs'' and ``the intent'' of the pre-war Iraqi regime. And while it may be true that Iraq was not in full compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, it also appears that the sanctions regime, coupled with the inspectors deployed under Resolution 1441, was successful at containing Iraq's ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction. Time has also not borne out the Administration's claim that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein. There is no credible evidence of any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This argument, made over the objections of many in the intelligence community and most regional experts in this town, was a calculated effort to establish a false link in the minds of the American people between the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the need to go to war in Iraq. This strategy of fear was not based on the facts, but on a desire to do whatever it would take to win public support for the war. It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. However, the security threat he posed to the United States was grossly exaggerated by the President and his public relations gurus. The question now looms--Having eliminated the regime of Saddam Hussein, are Americans safer today than they were six months ago? situation on the ground By almost every measure, the U.S. post-war mission in Iraq is not going well and the Administration remains deeply divided over the best way to proceed. While it is true that we have removed Saddam Hussein from power, it is far from clear that we have made the American people more secure as a result. The jury is still out on the implications of our actions for the Middle East region, the fight against terrorism and efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq of today does not reflect the rosy pre-war predictions made by the Bush Administration. The situation on the ground is far from secure. Since the President declared the end of major combat operations, 198 brave Americans have died--sixty more than died during the war itself. Hundreds more have been severely wounded. Every week more Americans are killed, more car bombs go off and more international aid workers leave the country. Our military forces are stretched thin and our troops are prime targets for former Baasthists and other extremists in a country overflowing with supplies of arms and munitions. The senior American commander in the Persian Gulf region has told us that we are engaged in a ``guerrilla war'' in Iraq. At the same time, the political process in Baghdad is bogged down over security issues, the friction of the occupation and increasingly bitter Iraqi-American arguments over the pace of turning over control and responsibility to Iraq's Governing Council. Increasingly, we find ourselves in a shooting gallery with no real exit strategy. Terrorist Threat. In one of the terrible ironies of the war, in the name of fighting terrorism, we have increased the level of terrorist activity in Iraq. Administration officials report that Baghdad has become a new magnet and breeding ground for extremists and terrorists from around the region. Even worse, our actions in Iraq appear to have forged a link for the first time between the fanatical Islamic extremists of Al Qaeda and the traditionally secular remnants of Saddam's Baathist regime. These two groups, ideological antagonists before the war, have now been driven together in an unholy alliance to wage war on Americans. While the terrorist attacks attributed to this newly forged partnership have so far been confined to Iraq, this virulent combination could begin to extend their activities elsewhere. International Community. The Bush Administration's contempt for the international community in the lead-up to the war has seriously complicated our ability to gain the cooperation and assistance of the rest of the world in support of common objectives. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, the entire world stood with us in the war on terrorism. The United Nations and NATO unanimously pledged their support in our fight and multinational involvement in our mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the highest ever. However, today this situation has greatly changed. Our friends and allies have been unwilling to participate in a substantial way in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Even under the auspices of a new U.N. Security Council Resolution establishing a United Nations role along side the U.S. in Iraq, very little is expected in new troops and financial pledges for the Iraqi mission. U.S. Credibility. The Administration's misleading statements about the nature and magnitude of the Iraqi threat have undermined our credibility around the world. Secretary of State Powell's report to the United Nations prior to the war relied on forged documents and information we later admitted to be unreliable. The nuclear specter that Administration officials pointed to has been discredited. Even more recently, Administration Inspector David Kay has been forced to back down from post-war claims that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were used for making biological weapons. The huge credibility gap that now exists for the Administration undermines our future ability to sound the alarm based on sensitive intelligence matters. Future claims about Iran, North Korea and others will be viewed with deep suspicion by a more skeptical public and an international community that, as the Economist described, sees the Bush Administration as having its own arsenal of WMD--``Wielders of Mass Deception.'' Regional Stability in the Middle East. The Bush Administration's predictions that the fall of Saddam Hussein would put extremists in retreat throughout the Middle East and spur progress in the Arab- Israeli conflict have not be realized. The Arab-Israeli conflict has gone from bad to worse in the six months since the end of the Iraq war. And while it is premature to reach any conclusions about the long term effects, the Administration's prediction that the fall of Saddam Hussein would trigger a kind of democratic domino effect, spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, looks unlikely in the foreseeable future. The trend is toward more violence and polarization in that troubled region. Conflict Management. The new ``preventive war doctrine,'' articulated by the Bush Administration to justify our action in Iraq, has set a dangerous precedent in international relations. The Administration's assertion that America has the right to attack another nation based on the perception of a future threat has--especially in light of what we know now to be faulty and hyped intelligence--undermined many of the long existing norms for international engagement. The world will become much less secure if nations with long histories of bitter differences, such as India and Pakistan, should choose to follow our example. By almost every measure, our virtually unilateral attack on Iraq has, at least in the short term, made American less--not more--secure. The difficult question we must now face is: Where do we go from here? Where do we go from here? The President's request for this $87 billion marks the culmination of his repeated failures--his gross exaggeration of the threats posed by Iraq in order to justify the war; his contempt for the international community before the war; his inability to gain significant international backing to share the military burden and the financial costs of rebuilding Iraq; his failure to level with the American people about the cost and challenges of ``winning the peace''; and, the list goes on. The Bush Administration deserves to suffer the political consequences of these miscalculations, misrepresentations, and missteps. But that decision will--and should--be left to the American people at the ballot box. In the meantime, we here in the 108th Congress have an obligation and a responsibility to limit the extent to which the American people will suffer the consequences of the President's bad decisions. These decisons have placed not just the Bush Administration--but our entire county--in a difficult predicament. The terrible irony of the war in Iraq is that, in the name of making America more secure, it has--at least for now--made us less secure. We cannot turn back the clock. The stablization and reconstruction of Iraq is now a critical interest of the United States, Iraq and the international community. I believe that we must help in the reconstruction of Iraq for two reasons. The first is based on the simple principle: ``If you break it, you fix it.'' The second is based on our security interests in preventing another rogue state from emerging in Iraq or the outbreak of a violent crime conflict that will further destablize the volatile Middle East region and further enflame Muslim and world public opinion against the United States. Unless we invest in maintaining and protecting our troops, and in helping to rebuild Iraq, we will make a bad situation worse; we will compound the damage done by the reckless actions of this Administration--and make the challenges facing our Nation in the years to come even more difficult. American Troops Are Still Necessary Over two thirds of the request before us--$67 billion of the $87 billion--is allocated to cover the costs of maintaining and protecting the U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq. These troops are providing the security framework necessary to maintain some semblance of law and order as efforts are made to create a mechanism for writing a new constitution, holding elections and returning sovereignty to an internationally recognized and legitimate Iraqi authority. The immediate withdrawal of American troops would produce tremendous instability and would likely lead to civil war between the three major communities in Iraq--the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Just as the precipitous U.S. disengagement from Afghan affairs following the Soviet withdrawal from that country opened the door to the Taliban regime, premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would benefit extremists and terrorist groups. If we don't fill the power vacuum that exists, groups like Al Qaeda and Ansar Al Islam will help fill it. In addition, the immediate withdrawal of American troops would undermine the status of our country around the world. The President engaged our military in Iraq with strong rhetoric about the type of Iraq Americans wished to enable Iraqis to create for themselves. He made pledges to the Iraqi people in our name. We must do what we can to make good on those pledges. Our hasty withdrawal would likely embolden our enemies in the region and around the world. It would be a setback to our common effort to expand representative government and combat terrorism. The Administration has been forced to recognize that we cannot achieve our post-war goals in Iraq alone. We must do everything we can to replace our troops with international forces and a new Iraqi police force. However, we must be realistic. We face time and resource constraints. For now, it appears that we will be able to attract only a limited number of foreign troops. Our allies and other nations, still seething from the Bush Administration's pre-war treatment are not yet prepared to provide substantial troops and financial support for the current mission. The Security Council resolution passed on October 16th is unlikely to significantly change this situation. In addition, it will take time to train an Iraqi force that can assume day-to-day responsibility for security. Until that Iraqi force is trained, American forces will be needed to prevent chaos and anarchy. Iraqi Reconstruction is a critical U.S. interest About twenty billion of the President's $87 billion request is slated for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This large investment is particularly difficult to stomach given both the mounting deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts weighted toward the super rich and the Administration's gross neglect of pressing needs here at home. However, I strongly believe that it would be short-sighted--and even dangerous-- for our country not to do what is necessary to attempt to win--or at least not lose--the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This will not be easy and the outcome is not guaranteed. Our chances of defeating the remnants of the Hussein regime and various extremists elements will be based in large part on our ability to show that the standard of living is better in the post-Saddam era. If we fail to create an environment in which the great majority of Iraqis see themselves as better off, we will open the door to ethnic, religious and regional strife. This could endanger our troops and undermine our efforts to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors and on the course to representative government. In the long run, our only chance of salvaging the situation is to make a substantial investment. The cost of not making a substantial investment today will be much greater sums tomorrow. We have opened a pandora's box. Significant funds are now needed to try to extricate ourselves from this difficult situation and try to ensure that over the long term the American people will not have been made less secure as a result of this war. The immediate withdrawal of our troops now is not a viable option. Handing the shattered Iraqi infrastructure, economy and body politic over to a makeshift government prematurely, is only a recipe for disaster. We must now all pay the price of the President's misrepresentations, miscalculations, and missteps. Responsible Leadership The key question facing Members of Congress today, however, is whether the supplemental request before us reflects an effective and sustainable plan for U.S. engagement in Iraq--and one that meets the test, both at home and abroad, of responsible leadership. The task before us is enormous. To succeed in Iraq we need a coherent and international plan for moving forward. The Administration's record has been poor and they have given us little reason to believe that they understand the mistakes they have made and will make much needed adjustments to the course they are taking. Experience with other nation-building efforts tells us that the mission before us is difficult and costly. It will require an extended commitment over a long period of time. And, unlike the military campaign, winning the peace will require the help of our friends and others in the international community. The American people are only beginning to realize the enormous implications of our involvement. The World Bank has estimated Iraq's reconstruction needs at an additional $55 billion over the next four years--not including the costs of the continued military presence in that country. In Bosnia, a country one-eighth the size of Iraq, the international community has spent close to $50 billion over the last 8 years in nation-building and reconstruction--troop deployments have cost an additional tens of billions for individual countries--and the end is not in sight. Let there be no doubt that the request before us today is just the tip of the iceberg. Given the record of the last six months it is frankly stunning how unwilling the Administration has been to meet its critics even halfway, to address the problems that exist, to provide a coherent roadmap for moving forward together with the international community, and to ensure that the bill for this mission will not be borne by America's children and grandchildren. First, the Administration has stubbornly failed to admit the serious mistakes that it has made and to address the serious credibility problem that they have created for themselves among the American people, the U.S. Congress and the international community. This was evident most recently in the President's handling of the report on weapons of mass destruction submitted by former U.N. inspector David Kay, now working for the Bush Administration. The Kay report findings seriously undermined key elements of the Administration's pre-war claims. Yet, the President stubbornly sighted them as proof of his case. In a recent interview, Vice President Cheney suggested a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th, a claim the Administration had never previously made, and a link which the President himself rejected in statements a short time earlier. Unless the Administration is willing to address the serious credibility issue that exists--or at least not compound it--it will be difficult for the American people to have any confidence in its statement about the situation in Iraq and its assessment of what needs to be done. In addition, the Administration continues to act as though it has no responsibility or legal obligation to inform the Congress and the people of this country about how they plan to use the money that we approve in this chamber. In recent hearings Administration officials have refused to answer questions regarding the expenditure of funds previously authorized by this institution and to give little or no information on future projected costs. In my own committee I asked Administration representatives about U.S. commitments, financial and other, to the Turkish government in return for deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq and I was not able to get any satisfactory answers. If the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for Turkish troops--by grant or by loan--they have the right to know. And if we are planning to send U.S. troops to fight--and maybe die--pacifying Turkish-Kurds opposing the Turkish government, then I believe the American people deserve the right to know about that deal. Second, it has been true from the very start that the President's Iraq policy has suffered from deep divisions within the Administration on the most fundamental issues--dealing with the international community, organizing for reconstruction and interpreting the threat itself. These divisions have been the subject of recent public discussion over the announcement of a new task force headed by National Security Advisor, Condeleeza Rice, with the task of coordinating the stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This announcement notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence to suggest that little real progress has been made in this area. Recent statements attributed to senior Administration officials are highly critical of the Bremer mission in Iraq and raise serious questions about who is calling the shots, even today, on U.S. policy. Without a coherent plan that is implemented by a united Administration we cannot succeed. This plan does not exist today. Third, it has long been clear that we cannot succeed in the post-war mission in Iraq alone. We must engage the international community for both political and material reasons. The Administration badly miscalculated the extent to which Iraqi suffering under Saddam Hussein would translate into goodwill toward America's role in Iraq. We must understand the complex situation we face today in our new role as an occupying force in Iraq. Fourth, the Administration's actions must match its rhetoric about supporting Iraqi democracy. The $20.3 billion reconstruction budget presented by the Administration was drawn up without meaningful consultations with Iraqis. In addition, we watch as Administration officials arm twist the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq over the strong objections of all three major Iraqi communities--the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunnis. It appears that the Administration has not grasped the first tenet of nation-building--that the Iraqi people must believe that they are rebuilding their own country. Fifth, the Administration has ignored the importance of its role in accounting for the funds that we approve and preventing corporate profiteering and abuse of taxpayer money. It must take serious steps to allay fears that appropriated funds will be wasted on large favored corporations. In light of the many stories of abuse we have heard in recent weeks, the ``prudent'' transparency mentioned in Mr. Bremer's testimony before members of Congress does not go far enough. The Administration must provide a satisfactory accounting of how funds have been spent to date and how additional funds are being planned for. Finally, and most importantly, the President is asking us to ignore the enormous budget implications of this request. Let's not fool ourselves or the American people. It won't be just this $87 billion. It will also require billions more in the months and years ahead. While we have a responsibility to maintain security on the ground in Iraq and assist with the reconstruction of that country, we also have an obligation to level with the American people. The President totally failed to prepare the American people for the true costs of the war and of ``winning the peace.'' Now he seeks to escape responsibility for those costs by putting them on our national credit card and running up huge deficits. Every penny of the $87 billion requested by the President is borrowed money. But we all know there is no free lunch. His ``out-of-sight, out-of-mind'' approach to such important issues will wind up costing our children down the road. We should not be waging war and peace by credit card. If we are willing to pay any price to defeat the scourge of terrorism, we must pay for it in an honest way. While the President has asked our troops and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, he has given the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut. That is wrong. It is wrong to pass the buck to the next generation; it is wrong to ask the younger generation, including our troops and their children, to bear the burden alone; and it is wrong to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share. We have a huge responsibility gap in our government. It is the gap between those who understand that we have a responsibility to establish stability and help rebuild Iraq--and who are prepared to pay for it now, and those who call upon the country to pay any price in Iraq, but run from responsibility paying that price. I had an amendment to fill that responsibility gap. It was an amendment to scale back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to pay their share of the costs of this bill. Incredibly, the House leadership prohibited that amendment from coming to a vote. This is a difficult time to be asking the American people to invest billions of dollars of their money to build schools, hospitals, roads, electric grids and communications systems. Here at home, our Federal, State and local governments are experiencing huge revenue shortfalls. The President's budget request for this year falls $9 billion short of what was promised by the Federal Government to meet our obligations to America's school children under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Three our of five children eligible for Head Start cannot receive help because of lack of funds. Years ago the Federal Government pledged to cover 40 percent of the costs of ensuring that children with disabilities received a good education, but today we are meeting only 18 percent of that cost. The same shortfalls occur in health programs, our national transportation infrastructure, and a range of other important domestic needs. We must meet our needs at home at the same time we meet our international responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the globe. We as a nation have enormous resources. We can meet both our domestic needs and our international responsibilities. We can help the Iraqis rebuild their country while we construct new hospitals and schools here at home. But we must be prepared to pay for them. If we refuse to pay now for our efforts in Iraq by reducing portions of the tax cut, it will make it impossible to make the investments we must make in education, health, transportation and other needs here at home. Already this year, when many of us called for full funding for No Child Left Behind and meeting our national obligations for special education we were told that we didn't have resources because of the large tax cuts. Adding this $87 billion to the deficit will make it even more difficult to meet those pressing needs. That is why we must pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq. We cannot put everything on our national credit card. The President has totally abdicated his leadership responsibilities. His job is to level with the American people--to inform them that our international responsibilities require us to pay the price of leadership. Leadership is about setting priorities. The war in Iraq was a war of choice. Regardless of what each of us may think about how that choice was made, we now have a responsibility to pay for the consequences of that choice. The President--by refusing to pay for the war and its aftermath--refuses to acknowledge the real costs of those choices. There are those who argue that, because the President has refused to scale back his tax cuts to pay for the war and its aftermath, those of us who believe we have a responsibility to provide security and aid in the reconstruction in Iraq have no alternative but to support the President's request for $87 billion without condition; that we have to go along with the President's plan to wage war and peace by credit card. That is an irresponsible position and a false choice. If paying for security and reconstruction is that important--and I believe that it is--when we should insist that we pay for it the right way. To do any less is to abdicate our responsibility to the American people. the false choice Money alone is not the answer to the problems we face in Iraq. The stakes are high and the mission is difficult. For those of us who support making this enormous investment I believe that we have a duty to ask if the money will be spent wisely and where it will come from. The Bush Administration has treated our concerns, and those of others, with contempt and arrogance--the same way they treated the international community prior to the war. I fear that if we buckle-in to the Administration's demand to do it ``our way or the highway,'' we will simply be acquiescing in the continuation of a fundamentally failed approach to a very sensitive and vital mission. We cannot allow ourselves to be caught in the false choice that we must engage the Administration's way or no way at all. For weeks I have struggled with this vote. As the son of a U.S. foreign service officer, I have always had a strong personal commitment to our country's international role. It is with great difficulty that I cast a vote against funds requested by a President in pursuit of U.S. policies abroad. However, the Administration's arrogant refusal to consider alternative approaches and, most of all, its refusal to pay now for the consequences of its choices has convinced me that they will not address these issues in a responsible manner until we demand a higher standard of leadership. If the President believes, as I do, that we have an obligation to provide security and help rebuild Iraq, he should have the simple courage to pay for it. Despite all my other reservations, if the President were to present a plan to pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq, or if my amendment to reduce the tax cuts to cover our costs were adopted, I would support this bill. The choice is not between doing nothing and doing it the President's way. We have a responsibility to the American people to do it the right way.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called ``partial birth abortion'' legislation before us today. Neither the Congress nor the courts should tell a woman how to manage her health or reproductive care. Unfortunately, what should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor has become a political football. Doctors, not politicians, should decide which surgical procedures are appropriate when a woman's health is in jeopardy. The anti-choice proponents of the bill have used highly misleading statements to cloak the true purpose of this bill--which is to scare doctors and deny women the right to choose a safe and legal abortion. Here are the facts: The bill does not ban only one procedure. ``Partial-birth'' is a political term, not a medical term. These bans are designed to inflame the abortion debate through heated, graphic rhetoric. In describing what is banned, the bill does not reference a recognized, established medical procedure. It does not exclude other procedures. In fact, the bill's language is deliberately vague, banning safe and common procedures. The bill is not a ``late term'' abortion ban. Because the bill lacks any mention of fetal viability, it would ban abortions throughout pregnancy. In Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to choose legal abortion until viability. The Court said that states may ban abortion after that time, as long as exceptions are made to protect a woman's life or her health. In fact, 41 states have laws that address post-viability abortions. The legislation now before Congress is designed, in part, to deceive lawmakers and the American public about when abortions occur. Don't be fooled. The bill is not constitutional. In 2000, the Supreme Court found Nebraska's so called ``partial birth'' abortion ban unconstitutional in Carhart v. Stenberg. The Court found that: (1) the law unconstitutionally burdened a woman's right to choose by banning safe abortion procedures; and (2) it lacked the constitutionally required exception to protect women's health. These flaws are present in the bill now before Congress. The bill still lacks any health exception, and its deliberately vague language still bans more than one procedure. These bans are not supported by the medical community. Contrary to repeated anti-choice claims, the American Medical Association does not support this legislation. Furthermore, respected health organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association oppose these bans. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill that turns back the clock on womens' rights in this country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor of the House, and I am pleased to support this amendment to the Higher Education Act which corrects the mistake that, as the chairman said, was made as part of the 1998 Higher Education Act reauthorization. We heard the story about the chairman's constituent. Many others studying abroad now find themselves in a similar predicament and unable to pay for college. Many more find themselves cut off after years of investment, both financial and personal, and face the prospect of having to abandon their dream of becoming a veterinarian. Currently, there are only 27 schools of veterinary medicine in the United States offering approximately 2,300 slots to first-year students. In the year 2000, more than 6,700 students applied for one of these limited slots. Many highly qualified applicants were denied admission to school in the United States and had to look elsewhere to complete their training. At the same time, the demand for veterinarians across our Nation is very high. In 2001, the typical recent graduate averaged almost three job offers upon graduation. Clearly, reputable foreign veterinarian medical colleges are key to supplying the growing demand for highly qualified veterinarians. S. 570 would correct the error we made in 1998 and restore the ability of students studying at foreign veterinary medical colleges to apply for and, if eligible, receive Pell grants, student loans, and other Federal aid. Today, more than 150,000 U.S. citizens studying at foreign institutions of higher learning receive $250 million in Federal student aid. American students attending foreign veterinary schools should also have access to Federal grants and student loans. This legislation will correct the misstep we made in 1998 and allow hundreds of students to complete their degrees and realize their dreams. It has bipartisan support; and like the chairman of the committee, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure the fair treatment of all students.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this concurrent resolution to honor the life and contributions of Johnny Cash. Johnny Cash, as we all know, had a long and distinguished music career, becoming one of the most imposing and influential figures in post-World War II country music. He is one of the only artists to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll and Country Music Hall of Fame. Cash did not sound like Nashville, nor did he sound like honky-tonk or rock and roll. He created his own unique sound, his own type and blend of music, revolutionizing the world of country music. In creating that sound, he released over 70 albums. In addition, he was one of the most successful country artists of the 1950s and 1960s, scoring well over 100 hit singles. These are amazing feats that few musicians have accomplished and even fewer are likely to repeat. Cash's career coincided with the birth of rock and roll. Johnny Cash was not just another musician, however. Rather, his later albums would show his deep sense of history. He illustrated his understanding with a series of historical albums. These albums were focused on the downtrodden, the common man, and also the plight of Native Americans in our country. Johnny Cash has made an indelible mark on American society. While we have lost one of our great musical artists of the last 50 years, his songs will continue to impact generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who has the great privilege of representing Nashville and who introduced this concurrent resolution; and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just a short time ago, the sunlight shone from the heavens and brightened and warmed the names of the eleven beloved members of our county who perished in the awful attacks two years ago. That moment reflected how we will remember them: as eleven individuals, men and women who warmed the lives of their family and friends and brightened our entire community. This beautiful memorial allows us--each in his/her own way--in solitude or in the company of others, to remember the eleven individuals who gave their lives to our country that day. And as I read the beautiful passages inscribed on the benches, I was filled with great hope and great faith. For the inscriptions make clear that those who took the lives of the eleven souls two years ago utterly failed in their ultimate purpose. For where they sought to divide us, they have only strengthened our bonds. Where they sought to instill fear, they have seen resolve. Where they sought to sow despair, they have been met with faith. Where they sought to poison our hearts with hate, they have seen the strength of love. And as the sun shining down on those eleven names has shown, where they first brought darkness, remembering them has brought light and warmth. And America will never forget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit the Conference Report on H.R. 2657 with instructions to the House managers to increase funding for Disaster Relief. I do so as I continue to receive reports from my home State of Maryland about the damage caused by Hurricane Isabel. Hurricane Isabel cut a path from Maryland's Eastern Shore to Maryland's western mountain range. In Baltimore's world famous Inner Harbor, one of the city's major arteries was transformed into a river by a seven-foot water surge. On Maryland's Eastern Shore, record breaking tides left 60 percent of Dorchester County under water. In my own district, 5 days after Isabel struck, thousands of people still have no electricity. How is it possible that, almost a week after the hurricane, in the richest country on the planet at a time when we are considering funding the reconstruction of Iraq, we refuse to provide adequate funding to our own Federal Emergency Management Agency. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me respond briefly to a few of those points. There is no doubt that whenever we do these competitions, and I think these competitions are a good thing if done fairly, when we do these competitions, it does cost the taxpayer money just to set them up and run them. Just as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has said, that is an expense. That is why it is baffling to look at the new circular and see that, unlike the old version, the new circular does not require that the private contractor show some savings is going to be achieved from their bid. It used to be you had to show at least a 10 percent savings or $10 million or whichever is less. That is not part of it any more. And yet we will go through the expense of setting up these competitions and taking out the one provision that ensured some kind of savings for the taxpayer. Number two, I share the gentleman's concern about the Federal employee who is planning a career, investing time and energy and knowledge in the Federal Government because the Federal employees can win the bid and the next day they could be subjected to another round. And within 5 years, it is required after 5 years that they be subjected to another round of competition. There is no such requirement placed on the private contractor. There are many other issues. I just think it is time to send them back to the drawing board. They may have spent a lot of time on it, but they did not get it right. Let us let them get it right. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, someone who has spent a lot of time working on this issue as well and who has been pushing the issue of fairness to Federal employees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, there are certainly problems with the old A-76 that I believe should be corrected, but I also believe that the new A-76 is, in many parts, worse and creates a more unfair playing field for Federal employees.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to ensure that we have an even playing field when the Federal Government decides to hold a competition to contract out Federal jobs and services to private contractors. It has been the long-standing policy of our government to allow for public-private competitions for those services that can be appropriately performed in the private sector, and that process is known as competitive sourcing and it is a good process. But as part of an ideologically-run agenda to contract out more and more Federal Government jobs, the Office of Management and Budget, on May 29, issued a new circular, a new ruling, and they rewrote the rules to tilt the playing field in favor of private contractors at the expense of Federal employees. Now, Federal employees are happy to submit to competition. I have thousands of Federal employees in my congressional district and they are willing to compete with the private sector. But it is unfair to ask them to compete with one hand tied behind their back, and that is what the most recent OMB rewrite of the circular does; it stacks the decks against our public employees. There are going to be 416,000 Federal employees that will have to submit to the new privatization process. Now, under the current system, about 60 percent of the times when we have these private-public competitions, about 60 percent of the time, the Federal employees have won the bid. But according to the Private Contractors Association, the association that represents those who would be receiving the private contracts, according to them in their own written statements, if the rules are rewritten, the number of times the Federal employees could win would drop from about 60 percent to 10 percent of the time. Now, how can we predict that in advance if we have a fair process? Well, the reason we can predict it in advance is it is not a fair process. It rigs the process against Federal employees, and it is a bad deal for taxpayers, because as taxpayers, what we want is the best deal for all of us, and to get the best deal, we want an even playing field. And if we rig the process in one way, it is not just unfair to Federal employees, it is unfair to taxpayers around this country, because they are not getting the best bang for their buck. So what does this amendment do? What this amendment does is it gives the OMB, officials at the Office of Management and Budget, another chance to rewrite the rules. It would keep in place the A-76 rules that have governed the process right up to May 29 of this year. So it does not get rid of private-public competitions, it just says let us have a time out and take another look at these rules to make sure that they are fair. In fact, it does not go as far as we have gone in this House earlier this year. In the Interior Appropriations, there was an amendment added that got through this House that actually prohibits the Department of the Interior from new contracting out in this coming year, to do new reviews in this year. This amendment does not go this far. This does not say no new contracting out. It just says let us play by the rules that we have been playing with up until May 29 until we have an opportunity to visit the flaws, revisit the flaws and look at the flaws in the new process. What are some of those problems? Number 1, the new OMB circular does not even allow the Federal employees to submit their best bid. You have a streamlined, fast-track process. Now, the pro-contractor commercial activities panel have themselves said that Federal employees should have the right to submit their best bids because of the so-called most efficient organization process, the process by which Federal employees can also organize themselves flexibly so that they can compete on an even playing field, that that is designed to achieve efficiencies and promote higher levels of performance. Well, if the new A-76 process is about performance and efficiencies and more competition, why is it designed so it does not allow Federal employees the ability to organize themselves to submit their best bids in the competition? Another problem: The new circular does not require contractors to at least show as part of their bids that there are going to be appreciable savings. It would not require the contractors as part of the bidding process to at least promise the taxpayers some financial benefit, and that is a change. Up until May 29 of this year, we required that the private contractor submitting that bid show that they are going to achieve at least a 10 percent savings, or $10 million, whichever is less, over what is being done by the Federal employees. These contracting-out processes, these competitions cost us a fair amount of money and time and resources to organize it. We should, at the end of the day, at least be able to show the taxpayers that we are going to get a better deal than at the beginning of the day. That is what the old OMB circular did. The new one does not do that. Another problem: It artificially inflates the cost of the Federal employees' bids. So right off the bat, if you are the Federal employees group, you are at a disadvantage because it arbitrarily assumes about a 12 percent overhead as part of your bid. Now, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense has said that the 12 percent overcharge arbitrarily slapped on in all the in-house bids is insupportable, and that either a new overhead rate must be established or an alternative methodology must be devised to allow overhead to be calculated on a competition-specific basis. In fact, there has been an egregious case recently showing how Federal employees, that their bid would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars over a private sector bid, and the private sector company got the award, but it turned out that because they had miscalculated the overhead for the Federal employees, the taxpayers got burned. So if the new A-76 process is being written to promote fair public competition, why does it so dramatically inflate the overhead cost for the in-house bids by Federal employees? Another problem: It discourages the private sector from providing adequate health care benefits to its employees. In other words, in order to get the contract, the bid from the Federal Government, you in the private sector, in order to get yourself a better deal, you submit a package as part of your bid, it does not contain adequate health care benefits for your employees. Obviously, that saves you money. It essentially allows the jobs to be shipped out to somebody else who does not provide adequate benefits. If that is not the intention, we in this body should do exactly what the Senate did on a bipartisan basis earlier this year in the Senate Defense Appropriations bill, where they said that if you are the private sector company and you are offering a bid that does not have adequate health care benefits, then the cost of health care benefits should not be considered as part of either bid. In other words, it should not be factored into the Federal employees' bid, and it should not be factored into the private contractor bid. That way, the private contractor would not achieve an unfair advantage by providing little or no health benefits to its employees. So those are just some of the problems, Mr. Chairman. As I said, all we need to do is take a time out, let us play by the rules that were in effect up until May 29 of this year, and provide a little time to do the rest. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, I think one thing we agree on is that what we want is the best deal for the taxpayer, and the way to get the best deal for the taxpayer is to have a fair competition process between the Federal employees and between private contractors who are competing for that. That is how we get the best deal. What this new circular does is tips the playing field in favor of private contractors. That is the only way the association of private contractors would be able to predict in advance now before any of the bids have been placed that Federal employees will only win 10 percent of the contracts in the future, in contrast to about 60 percent now. I outlined a specific series of fatally flawed problems with the new circular. I have not heard any response to any of them. One, Federal employees are not given the opportunity to come forward with their best bids; two, we are not guaranteed any savings under the new process, although we were under the other process; three, artificially inflated overhead costs in Federal employee bids that put them at a disadvantage. Many other problems, unfairness with regard to health benefits. Those are all problems. I represent many Federal employees, and I know that the organization that represents Federal employees, the American Federal Government Employees Group, is against this new circular. They speak for their fellow Federal employees. This is a bad idea, and all we are asking in this amendment, not to get rid of the process. The idea of having a competitive process is a good one. It is good for the taxpayers, and when it is done fairly, it is good for everybody. Let us go back to May 29. It still had problems but this does not fix it. This makes it worse. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me start by talking about what this amendment is not about. It is not about whether faith-based organizations can provide valuable services. They can and they do. In fact, many are currently running Head Start programs. The issue is whether those Head Start programs, faith-based programs that are receiving taxpayers dollars can discriminate in hiring based on religion; whether someone who comes to them with a terrific background in early childhood education can have the door shut on them because they do not pass a particular religious test, because they are not Jewish or not Christian or not Muslim or whatever the particular test is. Now, I have talked to many people around this country involved in the Head Start program, and not one of them has said to me, gee, we could do a much better job teaching children how to read, we could do a much better job teaching children arithmetic if only we could discriminate, if only we could fire the Jews in our organization, if only we could fire the Christians, if only we could fire the Baptists. No one has said that we need to do that, and it is a sad day that that comes up on this bill. Nothing should be more universal. Nothing is more universal in this country than the desire of everyone to provide their children with a good start in life, a head start in life. And yet what this provision of the bill does that we are stripping out is sends a terrible message to the children of this country that it is okay to discriminate based on religion. When we are teaching children in their earliest years the values that we want them to learn, we do not want to teach them the lesson of religious intolerance and religious bigotry. We must support the Woolsey amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have had bipartisan support for the Head Start program since it was founded in 1965, so it is extremely unfortunate that here tonight that bipartisan support is being sacrificed for an ideological agenda of block granting. As we have heard tonight, we agree on two things. We all agree Head Start has been a great success story for millions of American children. We also all agree that it can be improved, that it can be strengthened. So here is the great irony. Our committee did strengthen and improve Head Start in one part of this bill, the first part of the bill. That is what we need. We improved the coordination, and that would help millions of children in the Head Start program. Yet in the other part of the bill we take those improvements away. We take the higher performance standards away. We take away the benefits of the Head Start program, so that what we have provided and strengthened on the one hand we take away with the other. It is a bad deal for America's children. We can do much better. I urge us all to adopt the Miller substitute amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance that I oppose this bill. However, I cannot support a bill that makes such deep cuts in investments important to our nation. Mr. Chairman, among the many egregious cuts in this bill, this Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill for 2004 decreases funding for two critical agencies--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. The bill appropriates 6 percent less, or $181 million, than the current fiscal year for NOAA programs, and is even 8 percent less than the President's request for 2004. The bill also funds several distinct programs within NOAA, which will also suffer serious cuts. The National Weather Service, while receiving a small 3 percent increase over the current fiscal year, will actually receive $24 million below the President's request. The National Ocean Service will receive 16 percent less than the current fiscal year. The National Marine Fisheries Service will suffer a 19 percent cut. Funding for programs in Oceanic & Atmospheric Research will decrease by 18 percent. Finally, funding for the National Environmental Satellite Service will decrease by $3 million. Mr. Chairman, these are programs that serve the public good in a variety of important ways. They help advance America's commerce, promote environmental protection, preserve our fisheries and other natural resources, and protect lives by monitoring the weather. We are doing a great disservice to the American people by slashing these programs. Cuts to the National Institute of Standards & Technology, NIST, are just as troubling. This appropriations bill provides a staggering 35 percent less than the current fiscal year. This is a terrible blow to scientific research--the key to our future if we are to compete in the global marketplace. For example, this bill provides no funds for the Advanced Technology Program started by the Clinton administration to assist the development and utilization of new technologies by the private sector. This could result in a reduction-in-force of as many as 250 NIST personnel from a program that works well. In fact, the net impact of this bill could be a reduction-in-force of up to 300 people, roughly 10 percent of the NIST staff. Cost-of-living adjustments are not fully funded in this bill, forcing other programs within NIST to absorb $6.8 million in costs. This could well result in the loss of 50 NIST personnel through attrition or reductions-in-force. For my constituents, these are devastating cuts. But these cuts are just as significant to the American people outside my area because these cuts in scientific research will curtail NIST's ability to address America's national priorities. This bill does not fully fund the majority of NIST's proposed initiatives. In some cases, funding is completely wiped. Delays or under-investment in measurement science now will have significant future impact--delaying the commercialization of emerging technologies. The House Committee's allowance for NIST's efforts related to development of the standards, technology, and practices needed for the cost-effective safety and security of buildings and technical support of fire fighting communities, including emergency response, is less than half of what is required. As a result, the standards and measurements support for upgrading the capabilities of the Nation's fire fighters and the emergency response communities will be significantly delayed. In addition, the shortfall in nanotechnology funding will delay NIST's critical contributions to the National Nanotechnology Initiative. This bill also does not provide the full funding requested to equip and maintain the new Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML). Lack of funding for the proper maintenance and operation of the building and the equipment necessary to realize the capabilities of the AML will severely hamper NIST's ability to provide industry and science with the ever more accurate and demanding measurements and standards needed to support advances in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, advanced materials, new manufacturing technology, and other key growth areas. To construct this world-class facility, and then to short-change its maintenance, operation, and equipment needs is inconsistent with the $235 million investment made in the construction of the AML. Mr. Chairman, some of these programs may seem mundane to many of us in this chamber. But these are crucial scientific programs that will have long-range benefits for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, we need to ask: are we really helping the American people by slashing these programs? The answer, clearly, is no. These cuts are the price we must pay for an ill-conceived budget and tax policy. Mr. Chairman, I hope to be able to support this bill when it emerges from Conference. I am grateful to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Serrano, for agreeing to work with me to address the concerns I have expressed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Nikita Valerianovich Moravsky, American citizen and patriot, who will soon be celebrating his 80th birthday. Those of us who have had the good fortune to be born in the United States may sometimes take our citizenship for granted and forget how special it is. Dr. Moravsky's life reminds us of just how precious our birthright is, and his career of service to our country sets an example for us of appreciation for that gift. In 1923, when Nikita Moravsky came into this world, he had no country. He was born in Shanghai, China, to Russian parents who had fled from the Bolshevik Revolution in their homeland. Educated in Jesuit schools in Shanghai, Nikita studied French and English, while at home he learned to speak Russian with the perfect pre-war St. Petersburg accent that he still maintains. As a young man he lived through the brutal Japanese invasion and occupation of Shanghai. Then, in 1949, as the Chinese Communists prepared to enter the city, Nikita was evacuated, along with 5,000 other--primarily Russian--refugees to a displaced persons camp on Tubabao Island in the Philippines. There he remained for two years. Finally, in 1951, Nikita arrived in the United States, where he was soon employed on the faculty of the prestigious Army Language School in Monterey, CA, teaching Russian to American military personnel. Thus began Nikita's career of serving his adopted country. In 1958, he moved to Washington, DC, where he worked at the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) on the staff of its Russian-language magazine America Illustrated. He later entered the Foreign Service, touring Russia with USIA exhibits, and serving for two years as Cultural Attache at the American Embassy in Moscow. Next followed ten years of leadership positions with the USSR Division of the Voice of America, where broadcasts to the Soviet Union kept alive the values of truth and openness that ultimately undermined the Communist regime that his parents had fled so long before. After leaving government service, Nikita obtained his Ph.D. in Russian Area Studies from Georgetown University. In his post-government career, he has taught at George Washington University and American University, educating his students in Russian culture and history and thus helping to prepare a new generation of leaders for the post-Cold War era. He also has published numerous articles in both English and Russian and two books in Russian, one dealing with the Tubabao Island refugees and the Russian diaspora in the Far East and a new work entitled Through the Eyes of a Russian-American. It is thanks to the work of Nikita Moravsky, and countless others like him, who toiled for years behind the scenes during the Cold War, that the American ideals of democracy and liberty now have a chance in the former Soviet Union. It was not just American military expenditures that ended the Cold War, but the hopes of the Russian people themselves for a freer society--hopes well-nurtured by Nikita's work. The United States indeed has been fortunate in having Nikita Moravsky as an adopted son. I invite my colleagues to join me in saying ``thank you'' to Nikita for his career of service to the United States and ``congratulations'' on the milestone of his 80th birthday.