Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire of my friend, the gentleman from New York, and I have great respect for the gentleman, whether he intends to use any of his time. We are obviously getting near the end.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. This is a question of basic fairness. It is a question of priorities. This House recently passed a $350 billion tax bill, weighted disproportionately to the very wealthiest in this country. And in the conference on that bill, we cut out the child tax credit for 12 million low-income working families. The Senate solution is to take $3.5 billion and address that issue to make sure that we treat those children with decency. The House Republican leadership has said no. They said, we will only accept that $3.5 billion addition if you pass an additional $83 billion tax cut package. So they are holding those kids hostage to this other package at the same time that we have a record $450 billion deficit in this country. As a result of those deficits which have been fueled by the tax cuts to the wealthiest, this past week we were $8 billion short on the No Child Left Behind bill. Mr. Speaker, we are being unfair to the basic priorities of the people of the country. We should adopt this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the House conferees to adopt the child tax credit bill that was passed by the Senate more than a month ago, a bill that the President said he is eager to have on his desk and to sign. This motion before the House is identical to the motion passed by this House June 12, a motion offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) at the time. It is 36 days later, more than a month. Yet we have seen no action. The time has come for the House Republicans to stop playing politics with the child tax credit. The people who are going to suffer are the 12 million children from 6.5 million low-income working families, families who earn an annual income of between $10,500 and $26,600 a year, families out there working very hard day in and day out to make ends meet. What happened? How did they get cut out? Let us just go back a little over a month just to review a little history here. During the recent conference on the tax bill, that was the tax bill passed out of this House, $350 billion-plus, a package that disproportionately benefits the very wealthiest in our country, during the House-Senate conference on that tax bill, a provision was removed. It was a provision that was originally offered by a Democratic Senator in the United States Senate. It was a provision for basic fairness and basic decency. Indeed, it was one of the only provisions in that tax cut bill that benefits low- income, working families. While that bill accelerated tax cuts that had been previously passed by this Congress, while that bill accelerated the cut in the tax rates for the very wealthiest Americans, and while we accelerated the child tax credit for millions of other Americans, the Republican conferees on the House and the Senate side decided to remove that one provision in the bill that helped those low-income working families, that provided a child tax credit to those families with under $26,000 in income. It was a shameful moment. But at least the Senate recognized the problem and Democrats and Republicans on the Senate side passed a bill very quickly to fix that particular problem, to make sure that we restored the child tax credit for those low-income Americans who had been taken out of the bill. The President, who originally through the Vice President, Dick Cheney, had agreed with the plan to remove that provision that helped low-income families with a child tax credit, reversed position as well and the President said, I want to sign that tax bill, the child tax credit fix that was passed by the Senate. And then the bill came over to this body. We actually had, as I said, a motion to instruct conferees 36 days ago where we told the House conferees, let us go with the Senate bill. Yet the House leadership has prevented that from happening. Next Friday, as the Democratic whip indicated, next Friday, July 25, many Americans are going to go to their mailboxes, and they are going to find a tax rebate check there. Because of the nature of this bill, the wealthiest in our country are going to find some very big checks. In fact, the wealthiest 1 percent will receive on average $100,000 in tax cuts. Many other Americans will receive much smaller checks. But there is one group of Americans that is going to go to their mailboxes and find nothing at all and that is the low-income working families who were cut out of the bill and for whom the Republican leadership in the House refuses to provide relief right now, families whom we know are struggling each day as hard as every American. There is also another group that was left out. It was a group of Americans who have been fighting for our country overseas, 200,000 men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat operations and in other combat around the world. The House bill left them out, the Senate bill provided a fix, and yet this House Republican leadership will not allow us to provide that fix now. The House bill contains bad news for the children of those 200,000 men and women. It leaves in place current law and under current law many families will have tax increases because combat pay for their services is not counted for the purposes of the child tax credit. So under current law, an E-5 or an E- 6 sergeant with 6 years of service and two children is paid $29,000 a year. If he did not serve in combat, both of his children would be entitled to the full $1,000 child tax credit. But if he goes to combat for 6 months, his credit would be dropped to approximately $450 under the House bill. The Senate bill, which the President says he wants to sign, is designed to fix it. Let us get on with it. Let me just quote from the former White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, back in the week of June 12. Mr. Fleischer said he, the President, ``wants to sign that legislation, hopes that the Congress will get it to him quickly. He believes what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.'' Let us get on with the business. Let us make sure that we treat those families, those hardworking families fairly. There is no reason at a time when the very wealthiest in our country are getting huge tax breaks that we should not provide the child tax credit for those low- income working Americans. It is the right thing to do. It is the decent thing to do. Let us adopt this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday this House of Representatives passed legislation to authorize funding for the Department of State, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and to provide direction and guidance in the area of foreign policy. We are fortunate indeed to have hundreds of men and women working for the State Department here and around the world who have dedicated their lives to public service and are committed to serving our country at home and abroad. These public servants had been recently subjected to outrageous and unwarranted attacks by the former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich. In a scurrilous article in the current issue of Foreign Policy, entitled Rogue State Department, and in an earlier speech he gave before the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Gingrich accuses the men and women of the State Department of nothing less than undermining the status and respect of the United States around the world. In his article, Mr. Gingrich asserts that the cause of rising anti- American sentiment around the world is that the men and women of the State Department have ``abdicated values and principles in favor of accommodation and passivity.'' He accuses them of propping up dictators, coddling the corrupt and ignoring secret police abuse around the world. This from the man who was Speaker of this House, led this body in a three to one vote against President Clinton's Bosnia policy, a policy that started the process leading to the overthrow of the war criminal Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Gingrich's article piggybacks on an earlier speech he gave before the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington in which he claimed the State Department was engaging in a quote ``deliberate and systematic effort to undermine President Bush's foreign policy.'' These are extremely serious charges. Before making such serious charges, one would think that a person who wanted to be taken seriously would provide some credible evidence. He does not. Let us start with the fact that it is the President of the United States, not the foreign service or any other career civil servants, who selects the top policy-makers at the Department of State, beginning with the Secretary of State. Indeed, the top jobs in State Department are awarded to political appointees of the President, starting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. They are the captains of the ship. They set the vision, they establish the policies and they give the orders. If Mr. Gingrich believes what he writes, that the State Department is a culture that props up dictators, coddles the corrupt and ignores secret police, then his complaint is with President Bush who appointed the political team at the Department and who are charged with ensuring that the policies of the President are carried out. The fact of the matter is Mr. Gingrich provides not one single example in his article of where the career foreign service or other civil servants of the Department of State have refused to carry out the policies established by the Secretary of State and the President. What does he refer to as exhibit A in his capital case against the men and women of our State Department? He points to an internal analysis done by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. That is the bureau within the Department of State responsible for analyzing intelligence information we collect and analyzing that information, and he suggests that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and that that information, that some of the information collected, that our post-war challenges in Iraq are more daunting than President Bush's sunny rhetoric suggests. Specifically, in a portion of his article entitled Out of Sync, he contrasts statements made in a speech given by President Bush to statements made in an internal, confidential assessment by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. In a speech in Dearborn, Michigan, the President stated, ``I have confidence in the future of a free Iraq. The Iraqi people are fully capable of self-government.'' The internal State Department analysis reportedly stated that ``Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve in Iraq,'' and that ``electoral democracy were to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.'' One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the statements made in the INR memo are reasonable conclusions. The facts on the ground in Iraq have demonstrated clearly that liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve in Iraq, not impossible, but certainly difficult. It is a challenge ahead. It is also obvious that elections in Iraq could be exploited by anti- American Islamic fundamentalist forces. That does not mean we should not support elections. Of course we should. But we should be clear-eyed about the possible consequences. The important point here is not so much that Mr. Gingrich is blind to the obvious accuracy of these assessments that were made in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The issue is whether we want our policymakers to receive objective and independent analysis about the situation in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world, or do we want our nonpartisan experts to tailor, to fit their analyses to the political and ideological platform of the President, whether that President be a Republican or whether that President be a Democrat. Mr. Gingrich would like the professional analysts to manipulate the facts to fit the policy, rather than have a policy informed by the facts. He would have the taxpayers support a cadre of professional yes men and women to make sure that their internal and confidential analyses of the facts were in sync with the President's policy. Anyone else, any other conclusions, he apparently considers a traitor to the cause. What is amazing, what is amazing is that Mr. Gingrich would choose this moment to make this criticism. We are now learning more each day about how intelligence officials felt pressured to manipulate their assessments about the alleged links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and how their refutation of the claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material from Niger was ignored by the White House. Indeed, the State Department's analysts in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the very officials that Mr. Gingrich condemns in his article, determined last year that the report about Iraq importing nuclear material from Niger was not credible. The President admitted recently that claims about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa should never have been included in his State of the Union speech this year. However, by Newt Gingrich's logic, the fact that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research reached a contrary finding that conflicted with the President's statement in the State of the Union address would be evidence that the State Department seeks to undermine Bush foreign policy. It is a sad, sad day for our country when Mr. Gingrich would attack accurate and truthful statements made by career State Department officials as part of a systematic effort to undermine foreign policy. We should be working hard to create a bigger, a better firewall between intelligence analysts and the policymakers rather than weaken that wall, as proposed by Mr. Gingrich. Let us consider another example: In a speech in Cincinnati last October, the President stated, and I quote, ``Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.'' We now know that intelligence analysts in the State Department, as well as experts at the Department of Energy, concluded that the tubes' characteristics made it much more likely they were suited for artillery rockets. British intelligence and subsequently a team of American, British, and German experts convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency, with 120 years of cumulative experience, agreed that the thickness of the aluminum tube walls made them unsuitable for uranium enrichment purposes. And yet again, by Mr. Gingrich's logic, the experts at the State Department would be viewed as undermining U.S. foreign policy for reaching any conclusions at odds with what the President says. The fact that certain intelligence assessments from INR, or any other government agency for that matter, may be out of sync with the President's policy does not mean, does not mean that those intelligence analysts are engaged in some kind of deliberate and systematic effort to undermine our foreign policy. The President may always choose to ignore or disagree with the independent assessments of experts, but it is folly and shortsighted to suggest that he should not have the benefit of those independent assessments. The intelligence analysts at INR and elsewhere in the government have a duty to provide the Secretary of State and ultimately the President with their best assessment and their best judgment. It would be irresponsible for them to do otherwise when the lives of American men and women are at stake; and it is outrageous that Mr. Gingrich would have nonpartisan public servants betray their mission, violate their integrity and pander to the politicians. Mr. Gingrich titles his article the ``Rogue State Department.'' I suggest he focus his gaze across the Potomac. There at the Pentagon certain political appointees of President Bush have systematically undermined the independence and professionalism of our intelligence services. There, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, they created a so- called Office of Special Plans, a rump group set up to manipulate the intelligence to fit the policy. This truly was a rogue operation, and apparently Mr. Gingrich, who sits on the Defense Advisory Board, believes that operation should become the model for the State Department and other intelligence agencies. Another remarkable part about the Gingrich foreign policy article is the extent to which he believes that anti-American sentiment abroad is the result of inadequate PR, inadequate public relations, and inadequate spin control, rather than the substance of the policies themselves. He states, and I quote, ``One can hardly overstate how poorly the United States communicates its message and values to the world. Large majorities in France, Germany, and South Korea oppose the United States' perspective on Iraq, not to mention the 95 percent disapproval rate in Turkey.'' In other words, he sees these disapproval ratings as the result of our failure to explain our actions, rather than stemming from the actions themselves. Yes, says Mr. Gingrich, if only we had a better PR machine to explain to France, to Germany, South Korea, Turkey and others around the world our theory of preemptive wars, our theory of the nuclear first-use doctrine, and our claims that Iraq's WMD posed an imminent threat, then they would be enthusiastic supporters of our Iraq policy. And how would he do this? How would he put together this transformation? What is his solution? Bring in ``professional help.'' I kid you not. It is on page 46 of this article. To address the anti-American sentiments around the world, we need not, according to Mr. Gingrich, reconsider any of our policies. We need not consider working in partnership with other nations to resolve international challenges. Rather, we should ``bring in business advisory groups drawn from internationally sophisticated corporations to advise the State Department on how to improve U.S. communication strategies.'' Apparently, the world, according to Newt, is just one big game of spin control. Yes, bring in the big boys from Madison Avenue and the executives from multi-national corporations to explain our foreign policy and the world will love us. Just as amazing is whom Mr. Gingrich chooses to blame for what he perceives as a failed public relations game. It is not Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose incendiary remarks unnecessarily inflamed European sentiment against us. It is not the President and his White House spokesmen who command the bully pulpit and wield the megaphone. No, according to Mr. Gingrich, the culprits are the men and women in the bowels of the State Department. Yes, they, according to Mr. Gingrich, are the ones who are responsible for the raging anti- American sentiment around the world. You know, these outrageous accusations leveled by Mr. Gingrich might be dismissed as the wild rantings of a former Member of Congress who, as a private citizen, is free to express his views without being held accountable to anybody but himself. But he has not surrendered all his public responsibilities. He currently serves on the Defense Policy Advisory Board, which is chartered to provide the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense with advice on a range of national security matters. The caption accompanying Mr. Gingrich's article on foreign policy references his position on the board, and it is in light of the responsibilities of that position that we should judge his statements. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State cannot allow Mr. Gingrich's McCarthy-like attacks against the professionalism and integrity of the men and women of the State Department to stand. To do so would send a terrible message at this very critical time. First, as our Nation faces serious challenges abroad, our foreign policy must be guided by the best informed intelligence and analysis our diplomats and intelligence officers can provide. To suppress that information could jeopardize the success of our policies and endanger the lives of our citizens. Second, it would be folly for our national security leaders to see American problems abroad simply as PR issues to be addressed through an aggressive ad and spin control campaign. We cannot afford to block out the insights and the analyses and the assessments of our regional and country experts in the State Department and elsewhere in the United States Government. Mr. Gingrich has openly and loudly attacked the integrity of the men and women in the State Department. Moreover, he has advocated positions that would weaken our ability to confront the challenges we face abroad. Allowing him to remain on the Defense Policy Advisory Board would send a terrible signal. It would send a message to the men and women who work every day to protect our national security and advance our interests abroad that his statements are acceptable to this White House and this administration. Mr. Gingrich should do the right thing now and resign from the board. If he does not resign, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State should hold him accountable for his statements, and they should demand his resignation from the board. The Bush administration can either stand by the statements of Mr. Gingrich or they can make it clear that those statements are unacceptable. Mr. President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, where do you stand?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(C), I hereby announce my intention to offer a Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308, the Child Tax Credit bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: One. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment, not included in the House amendment, that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Two. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment, not included in the House amendment, that provides families of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone. Three. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions. Four. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster. Five. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate conferees, and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than the second legislative day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Representative of the Congressional District that is the intended home of a key component of the Project Bioshield Act, a $186 million bio-defense laboratory that is planned to be built on the northeast corner of the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. While I support the Bioshield initiative, I have serious concerns about the proposed location of the bio-defense laboratory. Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concerns about the potential safety risks that the location of this laboratory poses to our community, and the possibility that it could become a target for terrorist attacks. Given that our government determined--even before this new laboratory was proposed--that a perimeter fence is required to safeguard the buildings and employees at the National Institutes of Health. I believe a number of questions must be answered before we proceed further with the plan to locate the laboratory on the NIH campus. I have written to the Director of the National Institutes of Health and asked him to address the following issues: (1) The property of locating this laboratory in an urban setting like Bethesda, as opposed to at Fort Detrick, where a bio-safety level 3 laboratory is already under construction; (2) if located on the Bethesda campus, whether it can be located centrally on the campus, either in a new building or by renovating an existing building and relocating the offices and laboratories of that building to a building in the location chosen for Building 33; and (3) the precautions that will be taken to ensure that, in the event of a terrorist attack or human error, that any potential risk to our community presented by the presence of this laboratory on the Bethesda campus is minimized or eliminated. Mr. Speaker, I know that all of my colleagues in this House are united in our common effort to combat terrorism. But we owe it to our constituents to approach this endeavor carefully. I urge my colleagues and the Administration to consider all options so that we do right by all Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this Labor-HHS Appropriations bill--for the investments it refuses to make and the promises it fails to keep for the American people. I am profoundly concerned about the growing gap between what we say and what we do in this Congress. We say we want a healthy America. But this Appropriations bill shatters a five-year bipartisan commitment to the NIH by funding the world's premiere scientific and medical research organization with a paltry 2.5% increase--the smallest in fifteen years. And the majority's solution to our nation's critical nursing shortage? A funding freeze for the Nurse Reinvestment Act. No new money at all. For the growing ranks of our unemployed, a $150 million cut in the Community Services Block Grant program. That's less help for those left behind by the Bush economy--just when they need it the most. Perhaps nowhere is the credibility gap between the Republican leadership's rhetoric and its honest-to-goodness priorities more glaring than in the area of education. Not three years ago, President Bush--the self-proclaimed ``education president''--signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. In exchange for higher expectations and new, tough accountability measures to meet them, the President and the Congress promised students, states and school districts the requisite funds to get the job done. The bill we are asked to support today falls $8 billion short of that promise. It is an unconscionable abdication of our national responsibility. When the Education and Workforce Committee--on which I sit--took up the IDEA bill this Spring, the committee's leadership repeatedly refused to make IDEA funding mandatory--arguing that the Republican party could be trusted to provide what was necessary for the proper education of children with disabilities. In a grandiose show of GOP commitment, the Chairman even went to the Budget Committee and announced he had secured an additional $4.6 Billion in authorized funding over the next two years for IDEA. Now we see the true colors: Less than 50% of the $2.2 billion authorized. And astonishingly, even less than the $1.4 billion authorized in the original bill. So much bluff and bluster. Mr. Chairman, Appropriations bill are about so much more than dollars and cents. They reflect who we are as a people. Our values. Our priorities. And the course we wish to chart for the future. I believe this bill charts precisely the wrong course, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was pleased to support H.R. 2631 which guarantees that the legislation designed to provide Medicare recipients with some prescription drug coverage would not lead to the creation of an inferior prescription-drug benefit for retired federal employees. The Republican version of the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which passed the House on June 27, 2003 is a bad piece of legislation for many reasons. One of its many serious flaws is that it could result in a reduction of coverage for federal employees. Because of how the bill was written, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that as many as \1/3\ of all retirees who currently have prescription drug coverage through their employer's private plan will lose their coverage to the generally inferior set of benefits outlined in the House proposal. We cannot allow our retired federal workers to fall victim to capricious business practices geared toward increasing profits above all else. Federal employees who have dedicated many years of their lives to public service deserve to live out their retirement with dignity and security. H.R. 2631 will help achieve this. The legislation proposes nothing radical in seeking to ensure that the prescription drug package enjoyed by current federal employees will be available to federal retirees as well. Currently there is parity between the two benefits packages. And, this non-partisan effort is dedicated to guaranteeing that this remains true. Given the difficulties involved in retaining federal employees, we should all recognize that supporting this legislation will help communicate to new and current employees that their efforts and sacrifices are appreciated and will be honored even after they have completed their public service. The rate of growth of premiums in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), in comparison to the disproportionately slow growth in the cost of living adjustment (COLA), is a major concern for federal retirees. Since 1998, FEHBP premiums have increased more than 10% per year. Last year alone, FEHBP premiums increased 11%. During the same period, the federal retirement annuity COLA was only 1.4%. It is difficult enough to keep pace with these changes without the added pressure of having to deal with the possibility that the level of choice and service they have grown accustomed to during their employment will suffer in their retirement. It is important that we do all that we can to help our federal retirees deal with the burden of financial shocks. Therefore I thank those of my colleagues who joined me in supporting H.R. 2631 and I commend Mr. Davis of Virginia for introducing the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the committee leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts on this bipartisan bill, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); the subcommittee leadership, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for all his work on this piece of legislation. It is critical that we improve teacher training in this country to make sure that the children in our classrooms get the best possible results. I want to thank the committee for adopting an amendment that I submitted along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) to make it clear that these teacher-training funds could be used to train the teachers who train our youngest children because we all understand the importance of early, early education. I must say, however, I am very concerned about the growing gap between what we say we want to do as an authorizing committee and what we are willing to pay for as a Congress. We can talk all day long about the good things we are going to do; but at the end of the day, if we are not going to pay for them, all we have is talk. And I think this gap, this credibility gap, cannot be made more clear between what we are going to do here today and what we will do tomorrow when we take up the education appropriations bill. Today we will pass an authorizing bill, Ready to Teach, calling for a $300 million authorization to do the things we are talking about on this floor. Tomorrow we will have a Republican appropriations bill that has less than one-third of that money, $300 million authorized, $90 million appropriated. Today we are talking about how important it is to teach teachers, but tomorrow we will take up an education appropriations bill that underfunds No Child Left Behind by $8 billion. It is great to have trained teachers; but we if we do not provide the schools with the money to hire them, our kids will not get the benefit of those teachers, and that is $8 billion short. Today we are talking about training special education teachers so they can provide a good education to the children in this country who have disabilities. But tomorrow we will take up an education appropriations bill that provides less than 50 percent of what this committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, said we should be providing. Now, the chairman said we can look at that as a cup half full or half empty. The fact of the matter is we promised a full cup; and we, as a Congress, are not delivering. I think the chairman of the committee is absolutely right, we came here to make decisions to establish priorities. Let us do it. The reason we are falling short tomorrow in the appropriations bill and not meeting the commitments that we are making today in this authorizing bill is because the priority of the majority party here was to provide huge tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest Americans. Let us get our priorities straight and truly pass not only an authorizing bill but an appropriations bill that leaves no child behind.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act of 2003, to strengthen the Corporation for National and Community Service's AmeriCorps program. This bill will not only address the Corporation's recent accounting problems, but more importantly, it will protect and expand volunteer service opportunities in my State of Maryland and across our Nation. It is identical to S. 1276, which the Senate passed yesterday. S. 1276 was introduced by Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri and my colleague from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and I appreciate their leadership. We must act now to save this important program. The President has asked every American to volunteer in their communities and has made the AmeriCorps program a central vehicle in meeting volunteer needs. The AmeriCorps program can play an important and effective role in improving the lives of many Americans and communities it serves. But I have heard from many of my constituents who are concerned about the potential cuts to the AmeriCorps program. If we fail to act, next year's Maryland program will be slashed from 452 AmeriCorps members to 52 members. Nationwide the number of AmeriCorps members will be radically cut as well. Maryland's 8th District, which I am proud to represent, has a highly successful AmeriCorps program, Project CHANGE. Project CHANGE was developed in conjunction with the President of Montgomery College, Charlene Nunley, the Superintendent of Schools for Montgomery County, Jerry Weast, and leaders from the County's non-profit, immigrant and business communities. If we don't act, it is likely that Montgomery County will lose Project CHANGE together with the great work that its 20 AmeriCorps members are performing on behalf of our neediest students and families.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a private bill to make Junior Anthony Francis a permanent resident of the United States to put an end to deportation proceedings that are pending against him by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE). Junior has lived in the United States for 40 years and has six American-born children. He has been working and supporting his family and living as normal a life as anyone else. He is being considered for deportation not because of any crime that may be part of his past, but because after many years it was discovered that his immigration papers are not in order. But Junior had taken steps, in good faith, to make sure his papers were in order. He may have received bad legal advice that brought him to this point, but he certainly should not be deported because of it. It is absolutely wrong to deport Junior and break up his family, who are the real victims in this matter. That is why I am fighting for him. Junior's employer has recruited a new legal team with whom I have been working to keep Junior and his family together in the United States. We should pass this bill to prevent this injustice from breaking up Junior's family. At the very least, I hope introducing this private bill will help convince federal authorities to be lenient in this case because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, after six years in power and over a decade as a regional warlord there are signs that Liberian President Charles Taylor, one of the worst violators of human rights in the world may be leaving power. On June 17, the Associated Press reported that the Liberian Defense Minister Daniel Chea committed Taylor to step down as part of a peace agreement with rebel groups fighting his government. Taylor's rule has been marked by human rights violations on a massive scale. Currently Liberia is enmeshed in a vicious civil war. According to the Associated Press, ``The past three years of rebellion have uprooted more than 1.3 million Liberians, sending hundreds of thousands of them fleeing into neighboring countries.'' His rule has not only brought death and destruction to Liberia but undermined stability throughout West Africa. He sponsored the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone, a rebel group which conducted a gruesome campaign of murders, rapes and kidnappings. The RUF became known for chopping off the arms, lips and hands of their victims. Taylor has supported rebel groups in Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea and Burkina Faso as well. Last week a U.N.-backed war crimes court in Sierra Leone indicted Taylor accusing him of ``bearing the greatest responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law'' during Sierra Leone's civil war. As the brave men and women of our armed forces work to bring peace and stability to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq it is important to point to other victims of human rights abuses in other parts of the world that do not receive as much media attention. The Bush administration has spoken about the importance of promoting human rights and democracy, but has done little to support the aspirations for freedom on the part of the Liberians despite Liberia's deep historical ties to the United States. We can and should do all that we can to support the peaceful removal from power of Charles Taylor and ensure that he faces the charges brought against him by the U.N.-backed court.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker today I am introducing the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Resolution of 2003, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that private sector debt collection agencies should not be paid on a commission basis or as a percent of the amount of federal taxes they collect. The Internal Revenue Service has proposed paying private debt collectors a 25 percent commission to collect unpaid tax debt. That proposal will jeopardize the rights and privacy of American taxpayers. The following organizations oppose the IRS proposal and have expressed their strong support for this important consumer protection legislation I am introducing today: Citizens for Tax Justice, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, National Consumers League. Two pilot projects were authorized by Congress to test private collection of tax debt for 1996 and 1997. The 1996 pilot was such a failure that the 1997 project was cancelled. Contractors violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and did not protect the security of personal taxpayer information. An IRS Internal Audit Report found that contractors made hundreds of calls to taxpayers during times prohibited by the FDCPA, and that calls were even placed as early as 4:19 a.m. The Administration's proposal to privatize tax collection services flies in the face of Section 1204 of the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which specifically prevents IRS employees from being evaluated on the basis of the amount of taxes they collect in order to eliminate incentives to use overly aggressive tax collection techniques. Despite concerns about aggressive collection techniques, the Administration now wants to pay private debt collectors $3.25 billion in commissions to collect taxes that IRS employees could collect for roughly one-tenth of that amount. Paying private debt collectors on a commission basis will be costly and will threaten the rights and privacy of the American taxpayers. We must ensure, as this resolution seeks to do, that federal tax collection functions will not be handed over to private sector bounty hunters. Our constituents deserve that assurance. Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers need to know that their government works for them, not against them. I urge this Congress to pass the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Resolution of 2003.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The health of our democracy depends on a full and open airing of ideas and opinions. Monday's action by the Federal Communications Commission will limit the range of voices and opinions Americans will hear in the marketplace of ideas. With marginal media coverage and little solicited public participation, the FCC's vote to relax media ownership rules has made possible the further concentration of the print and broadcast media in the hands of only a small number of powerful corporations. The FCC's action will only deepen existing concerns about an industry plagued by accusations of homogeneity and fears that the news and views Americans hear is dominated and controlled by a few powerful voices. Years ago, Congress debated the rules that regulate the cable industry. One of the strongest arguments in support of cable at that time was that the medium would increase the opportunity for a diversity of voices in an arena where only a few corporations controlled America's access to information. Yesterday, the FCC said its decision to allow greater media concentration was motivated largely by the dearth of choices offered by the cable industry today. They argue that the current rules are outdated and discourage competition. But they ignore the fact that the lofty aspirations set years ago for the cable industry have fallen short of the mark. Today an alarmingly small number of corporations like General Electric, AOL Time Warner, Viacom and Disney control not only the conduits through which information flows to the public, but increasingly, the program content as well. The FCC's decision will only continue this trend. This is a dangerous road we are on. As media concentration has grown over the years, we have watched as more and more voices have been pushed from the public stage. Not only minority voices and alternative viewpoints, but increasingly even local community voices are silenced as corporate executives adjust program schedules to maximize their bottom lines. Despite the best efforts of the FCC and those in the media who stand to gain the most financially, the public has been able to make its opposition to this change known. Members of Congress have received thousands of calls from angry constituents who, already concerned about the lack of choice, fear that the FCC's decision will mean a further erosion of choice. The day before the FCC was to deliver its decision, they had to shut down their public email box because it overflowed with hundreds of thousands of complaints from ordinary citizens who recognized the gathering threat. Ted Turner and Barry Diller wrote editorials opposing the FCC's plan and groups across the political spectrum from the NRA to now joined the chorus of voices condemning the decision. It now falls to the Congress to serve the public interest and work to reverse this effort to dumb down the American media. The public interest is not served by a cookie-cutter approach to important policy issues. At stake is a loss of competition, local community perspectives and diversity. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse the most troubling aspects of the FCC decision.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers a measure which will seriously impinge on a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion. A women's right to choose is a fundamental one, and the Congress should not 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. Each individual case is different and involves a variety of factors. The decision in each case should be left to the woman and her family, in consultation with her doctor. We must not pass legislation that curbs the ability to make a decision which might be necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. Moreover, we cannot exert a power we do not have. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, has determined that a woman has a constitutional right to choose a safe and legal abortion during the pre-viability period. Many people have been misled into believing that this so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion bill is about banning late term abortions. It is not. It applies to all abortions in which a certain medical procedure is used regardless of when the abortion is performed. We should leave it to the doctors--not politicians--to determine what method is necessary to best protect the health of a woman. Limiting a woman's sovereignty over reproductive choice and restricting access to the best health options comprise the essence of this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.