Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, my father served in World War II and when I look at the American flag I see the sacrifices he and our nation's troops and veterans have made for us to be able to live freely. An important part of that freedom is the ability of our citizens to express themselves in any way that does not infringe on the rights of others. That is what sets the United States apart from so many other nations. Our constitutionally assured freedom of speech serves as a check against government oppression and injustice. The Supreme court has held in several important First Amendment cases that a person may desecrate a flag, so long as a danger is not created. In 1989, the Supreme Court stated in Texas V. Johnson that any speech, particularly such intentionally expressive and overtly political speech as the burning of the flag, is protected; it is within the realm of liberties which our constitution guarantees us. Our government cannot dictate how we express ourselves politically, so long as we do not endanger or violate the rights of others. While I personally find the desecration of this country's flag to be reprehensible, even more important than the flag itself is the freedom and liberty it represents. It is a sad day when, in the name of patriotism, we limit the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment of the constitution. The flag is a symbol of the principles and freedoms that make our country great. When we encroach upon those freedoms, we risk doing far more harm to our nation than any flag burner could ever do.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to vote for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 now before the House. The brave men and women risking their lives in Iraq deserve the support of the United States Congress and we have a responsibility to provide the military with the means to protect all of us. However, I am deeply troubled by portions of the Act that have the potential to undermine America's standing in the world, decrease our security, undermine the protections guaranteed under current law for civil servants working in the Department of Defense, and endanger our environment. Earlier today an important amendment failed to be included in the final version of the Act that we are now being asked to vote on. The Tauscher Amendment would have transferred money from the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to a conventional weapon system meant to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets. The development and possible use of such a bunker-busting nuclear weapon is a dangerous step for this Congress to authorize. Such weapons would disperse deadly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere, could lead to the resumption of nuclear testing and would undercut US efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were also denied the opportunity even to cast a vote on the other amendments. An amendment I proposed with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Davis to ensure that protections for the 700,000 civil service employees of the Department of Defense remain in force was excluded from consideration by the Rules Committee yesterday. In the Committee on Government Reform, of which I am a member, representatives from the Department of Defense made it clear that our military success in Iraq was the result of a team effort; a team effort between the military and the civil servants within the Department of Defense that provided them crucial support. It was a true partnership. Yet, just a few weeks after our military success in Iraq, the Pentagon launched what can only be described as a sneak, surprise attack on the rights of those civil servants within the Department of Defense. If these civil service protections, in existence since the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, are thrown out it will open up the Department of Defense to party politics and will change our security. We want a personnel system that rewards people based on merit, not based on political favoritism. We want, for example, our procurement officers to be looking out for the public interest, to be looking out for our national interests, not the interests of the most politically connected contractors. I support the idea of pay for performance; but it should be merit-based performance, not a political loyalty test. I think this bill, which is important to our national security, should not contain this provision which damages the integrity of the Civil Service. We were also denied the right to vote on an amendment to protect our environment. I am appalled by the provisions in this bill that exempt the Defense Department from important environmental protections. It is a sad irony that the Department, which is responsible for protecting our nation from enemy assaults would ask for an exemption from laws to prevent assaults on our environment here at home. The work of the Department of Defense is crucial to protecting both the physical security of our citizens and ensuring that we as Americans can live in a society that protects our interests in the long run. I will vote for the Act, but my support is tempered by my serious concern that certain elements of this bill could prove detrimental to other important national interests. Mr. STARK Mr. Chairman, I oppose HR 1588, the Defense Authorization Bill. This bill will enact a defense budget 23 percent higher than the average military budget during the Cold War. It then sets the stage for a 17 percent increase in defense budgets over the next decade. Republicans seek to finance these increases by taking money away from basic domestic priorities and saddling our children with a deficit as far as the eye can see. Of course, the President and Republicans won't provide the funds needed to improve our schools and guarantee our children a high quality education. They won't provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors and people with disabilities. They won't even give so-called ``first responders'' the resources to protect Americans against terrorist attacks that may well be spurred by this Administration's fanatical foreign policy. There isn't a dollar in the President's overall budget for school modernization, but this defense budget has us spending $9.1 billion on a pie-in-the-sky missile defense system. 28,000 kids will be cut from Head Start, but $15 million will go to researching something called nuclear ``bunker buster'' bombs. Make no mistake about it, the Bush Administration has us on the edge of a new nuclear arms race by pushing for research into so-called ``low-yield'' nuclear weapons. The idea behind their development is their possible use in conventional warfare! So much for the theory of nuclear deterrence. Such a policy would only welcome more nations--on top of North Korea--into a renewed worldwide nuclear weapons race. I don't even want to imagine a future where the world's armies use nuclear weapons to fight wars. At the same time this bill raises the nuclear ante throughout the world, we'll be spending $28 million less than the federal government says is necessary for non-proliferation efforts. These are vital to keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Republicans are also overriding basic environmental protections in this defense bill before us today. Their bill will allow military bases to override the Endangered Species Act--putting rare species at risk of decimation. It also allows the Navy to use sonar devices that have led to the deaths of whales and other threatened marine mammals. It doesn't stop at endangering our environment. It also tramples the rights of workers at the Department of Defense and other who work for our military. If enacted, this bill will scrap basic civil service protections at the Defense Department that have long promoted a professional federal workforce. It even fails to provide women on military bases overseas with access to potentially needed reproductive health services--even if they pay for those services with their own money. Mr. Chairman, this Department of Defense Authorization bill is wrong in many ways. It dedicates too much of our limited federal budget to defense at the expense of other vital domestic needs. It spends those dollars in ways that could add to our defense costs by inciting a new nuclear arms race. It weakens protections for those who work in the Department of Defense or otherwise serve our military. And, it endangers environmental protections here at home. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this dangerous bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is outrageous that the rule proposed by the Republican leadership denies the 435 Members of this House the opportunity to vote on the amendment to restore certain rights and protections for the 700,000 civil servant employees within the Department of Defense, rights and protections that are stripped away under the underlying bill. It is particularly sad to see this just after those civil servants joined together with our military in such a successful military operation in Iraq. Yet this bill does away with so many protections. For example, it takes away the time-honored protections to ensure that civil servants will have their professional career advancement based on merit and professional conduct, rather than political litmus tests. Do we want our contract officers, do we want our procurement officers to be looking over their shoulder to see if their decision is based on what is best for the taxpayer or best politically for someone in the Defense Department? And yet this bill eliminates those protections that have been in place since Teddy Roosevelt. Let me just say that the amendment that was proposed, and I will read a provision of the amendment that is being denied an opportunity for us to vote on: ``An employee shall have the right to be free of favoritism or discrimination in connection with hiring, tenure, promotion or other conditions of employment due to the employee's political opinion or affiliation.'' But they do not want us to have an opportunity to vote on that provision. The head of the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, David Walker, when he was asked about this issue, said, ``I do not believe that we have the infrastructure in place in order to effectively and fairly move to a more performance-based compensation structure at this time.'' In response to a question, he said, ``I think the agency has to demonstrate that they have these systems and controls in place before they should be given the flexibility.'' Mr. Speaker, do we want our Defense Department, the civil servants, to be run using professional judgment, which I think is in the best interest of national security, or do we want them to be driven more by political considerations? I think our national security depends on a nonpolitical, professional civil service; and it is very disappointing that the amendment was not made in order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. As we have heard, tucked into this bill, Mr. Chairman, which is so important to our national defense, is a provision that I believe could have long-term negative consequences for our military readiness and effectiveness. It is a provision that will rewrite the rules for 700,000 civil service employees in the Department of Defense. Mr. Chairman, in our committee, the Committee on Government Reform, when the representatives from the Department of Defense came to testify, they made it clear that our military success in Iraq was the result of a team effort, a team effort between the military and between the civil servants within the Department of Defense that provided them the support. It was a true partnership. Yet, just a few weeks after our military success in Iraq, the Pentagon launched what can only be described as a sneak, surprise attack on the rights of those civil servants within the Department of Defense. It is very ironic that just a few weeks after this body passed legislation endorsing the good work of public employees, that we would take this action that treats them so unfairly. Mr. Chairman, there has been an amendment proposed that would strip these provisions or change these provisions in the bill. It should be a bipartisan amendment, it should be a nonpartisan amendment, because otherwise what this bill does is gives the Secretary of Defense, not just this Secretary but any Secretary of Defense, Republican or Democrat down the road, the unchecked authority to rewrite the rules for civil servants within the Department of Defense, the rules with respect to hiring, firing, pay, bonuses. It will greatly damage our security if we open the Department of Defense to party politics. We want a personnel system that rewards people based on merit, not based on political favoritism. We want, for example, our procurement officers to be looking out for the public interest, to be looking out for our national interests, not the interests of the most politically connected contractors. I strongly support pay for performance; but it should be merit-based performance, not a political loyalty test. Last December we saw the big bonuses going to those who were political appointees within the administration. I think this bill, which is so important to our national security, should not contain this one provision that I think will damage our national security interests in the long run.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I would like to begin by commending the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and the bill's author, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), for their leadership in fashioning a sensible bipartisan consensus in this very important area of public policy. Our Nation's most vulnerable youth needed us to set aside our differences and come together and step up to the challenge of getting them the help they need and deserve. I think in this bill we have done that. Mr. Speaker, compared to the size of some of the other reauthorization bills that have come out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, some may say this is a small bill. But I think we should make no mistake about it. This bill will be a big deal to the youth and the thousands of homeless and runaway children who, by virtue of our actions today, will have a better opportunity to reclaim their lives with the Federal support this bill provides. It will help throw many youth whose lives are sinking that life jacket they so desperately need. For the first time, this legislation includes the specific authorization for Federal programs designed to help runaway and homeless youth, $105 million for fiscal year 2004, which represents a 19 percent increase for the worthy outreach, screening, counseling, referral, shelter services, and other services funded under the act. It includes maternity group homes to support teen mothers' care for their young children as they begin their walk down the road to financial independence. It sets the age of eligibility for needed services at 18, so vulnerable teens are not summarily kicked out of programs helping them turn their lives around after an arbitrary period of time. It sensibly ensures that services for homeless and runaway youth are well coordinated with other Federal programs, like the McKinney-Vento Act, the Work Force Investment Act, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. It also reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has proven itself an invaluable tool to law enforcement since its creation nearly two decades ago. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the substantial bipartisan majority that turned back what I believe was an ideologically-driven attempt in committee to handcuff public health officials in efforts to ensure the reproductive health of the youth we are trying to reach with this legislation. Our unity across the aisle on this committee was a triumph for good science and common sense. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very worthy piece of legislation and a good response to a critical public policy need. Again, I want to commend the leadership of the committee leaders on both sides of the aisle and again, the author of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Keep Our Promises to America's Children and Teachers Act'' or ``Keep Our PACT'' Act. Every parent knows first-hand how important it is to keep the promises we make to our children. I believe the federal government has a similar obligation. However, in too many areas, the rhetoric is not matching the reality. Mr. Speaker, the No Child Left Behind Act signed just last year requires schools to adopt new accountability measures in exchange for the resources necessary to achieve high national standards. This was a bipartisan commitment. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's budget and the one adopted by the House of Representatives falls $9 billion short of the funds promised. Similarly, 28 years after passing the landmark Individuals with Disabilities Education Act special education law, it astonishes me that the federal government is providing less than half what was promised to children with disabilities under the original legislation. Where we should fund 40 percent of the costs, we are only at 18 percent. Mr. Speaker, the bill I have introduced today would right these wrongs. It would fully fund No Child Left Behind and IDEA so that every child has the opportunity to meet his or her full potential. Here in Congress, we should never forget the lessons we teach our children: a promise made must be a promise kept.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in less than 1 hour's time, this House of Representatives set our Nation on a very reckless economic course. We are here today in a time of great national challenge. Overseas we face the large challenge of rebuilding Iraq and trying to establish a democratic form of government in that country of about 23 million people. The President recently asked for, and the Congress appropriated, about $80 billion for our efforts in Iraq. But while we are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, we must not forget the very real needs right at home. Because while we build new schools and new hospitals in Iraq and we work to get the Iraqi economy moving again, this administration has been very much out of touch with our needs right here at home and with getting our economy moving again right here in America. Since the Bush administration came to office, we have lost 2.7 million jobs in this country. Gone, vanished. Half a million of those jobs were lost in the last 3 months alone. And today, 8.8 million Americans are unemployed. We need an economic plan that will put America back to work and a plan that will reflect the values and the priorities of the American people. The Republican tax package that was adopted earlier today does not. It will not stimulate the economy, it will only stimulate red ink in the years to come, and it does not reflect the priorities of the American family; it reflects the priorities of a very few at the expense of our national interests. In fact, the message of the Republican tax cut today was loud and clear: forget about the people who are out of work. Forget about the long-term fiscal health of our country. Their number one domestic priority, number one, the most pressing need in America today, according to the package and message they sent, is that the very wealthiest in our country, the people at the very top of the ladder are being taxed too much and we need to give them a big tax cut in the form of capital gains tax cuts and a removal of the tax on stock dividends. I can tell my colleagues, and I think we all know, that the troops who sacrificed so bravely, most of them are not waiting for their big stock dividends in the mail. But our troops, their children, and all Americans will be paying for this in the long run, because this tax cut is going to exacerbate the fiscal problems in this country. We have already had the biggest reversal in American history, from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to $2 trillion projected deficits. And who is going to pay? In the long run, we are all going to pay, because we either pay in terms of taxes increased on our children in future generations, or major cuts in programs that are important to the American people such as Social Security and Medicare. In fact, we are going to be paying right now, because when we reduce our obligations to the States, when we do not fulfill our promises under the Leave No Child Behind Act, where this year we are $9 billion short of what had been committed, we place greater burdens on the States. And the States either have to do one of two things. They either have to increase revenues and taxes, or they have to cut back on programs. In the State of Maryland, we are seeing dramatic cuts in higher education. Who is paying for those? Students. Their tuition is going up by more than 10 percent. It is simply a tax on students. It is a tax on other people. You cannot get a free lunch. The American people know that. Someone has to pay. Look at what we are doing to veterans benefits. Sure, we are reducing taxes to the very wealthiest in this country, but what is the result? A dramatic cutback in benefits for veterans. So what do we do? There was an alternative plan put forward by the Democrats, but no one was allowed an up-or-down vote on that plan here in this body. It called for greater relief for the States so they do not have to either increase taxes back home locally or dramatically cut education and health benefits. It called for a tax break for more middle Americans, increasing the child tax credit, an acceleration of the marriage penalty relief. It called for greater relief for unemployed workers and their families so that they could continue to pay the rent, continue to put food on the table; and that relief has a big impact on the economy. Those are people who need the funds, they have been in work, they lost their jobs through no fault of their own, they are continuing to look for work; and when they get that dollar of help, they go out and spend it in the economy. Finally, it provides for business tax credits to provide for investment now. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just find that this particular proposal that was adopted today sets our Nation on a reckless course. We need a plan for all of America that will move our entire Nation forward, and I hope in the days ahead we will do that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, from listening to the other side, you would think that this was something that was run-of-the-mill, that we took away these protections every day and have in the past. That is just not true. This is the first time this Congress will eliminate, delete language in our statutes, in our laws that expressly prohibits discrimination in these programs based on religion. It is the first time we will remove a protection that this body has decided is important and fundamental to American principles of operation of church and State. As has been stated, this language was first signed into law in 1982 by Ronald Reagan. It was readopted in 1998 by this House of Representatives. And it continues to make sense to every American out there that their tax dollars should not go to discriminate when it comes to federal programs that are secular in nature. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this full House is not given the opportunity to debate this full issue and vote up and down.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. As a new Member of this House, I was appalled that one of the first actions we took in the Committee on Education and the Workforce was to adopt a provision that strikes at the heart of religious liberty in this country. The underlying bill contains a provision that takes us down a very dangerous road in this country, a road of religious bigotry and intolerance; and even worse, it uses taxpayers' dollars to promote that intolerance. What am I talking about? Under current law, if you receive Federal funds to run a job training program in this country, you are not allowed to discriminate in your hiring based on religion. I think that makes sense to all Americans. If you are receiving Federal dollars for a program you are running, you should not be able to say to a perspective job applicant, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. But that is what this does. Here is a chart that shows what current law is. This was a law that was language originally signed into law by President Reagan. It was most recently adopted again by this body in 1988 as part of the last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It has a prohibition of discrimination language, and it prohibits discrimination in employment based on religion, existing law. But what this underlying bill does is it takes a big red X mark and crosses out ``religion.'' It is a green light in this country to allow organizations that receive Federal funds to say no, to give you the religion test. Imagine if you were to open up your local newspaper and see a help wanted ad for a job training program, and it said Christians only need apply, Jews only need apply, or Muslims only need apply. In fact, it can say Baptists only, or Methodists only. We would be appalled. But even worse, we would be appalled if we saw that that ad in that newspaper was paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Imagine as an American citizen responding to an ad for a job with a job training program, and you are qualified and you go to the interview, and they say, Gee, you know, you are really qualified, in fact you provided job training services in the past, but, golly, you are just the wrong religion. You are not a Christian, or a Jew, or You are not a Muslim. Or you could be the right religion, but they are allowed to interrogate you. They can ask you questions. How many times did you go to church? Or synagogue? What are your charitable contributions? Let's talk about your marriage and family life. They are allowed under this provision to probe into your personal life to determine whether you meet their ``religious test.'' And they can do it all with your taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, that is not the America I know. I do not think that is the America most Americans know. It strikes at the heart of our constitutional protections for liberty. I would just say I think the full House deserves an opportunity to at least debate this, so that all 435 members have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether they want to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules has voted to deny this full body, all 435 Members of this Congress, the opportunity today to vote up or down on meeting the education commitments we have made to America's children. We many years ago said that the Federal Government was going to pay for 40 percent of the costs for special education; and as we sit here on this floor today, we are only at 18 percent. I know that in campaigns throughout this country when we all go before school boards, Republicans and Democrats, when we talk to parents groups, we have all said how important it is to keep our promise and make that 40 percent commitment. I am very pleased and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to debate that very issue and vote on it in committee. I was disappointed that it failed on party lines, and I think it is important that this full House have an opportunity to debate that. This is the reauthorization bill. This is the one time for the next 5 years we are going to be taking up this issue. This is the time to do it. For those who say it is not important, we should leave it to the appropriations process, I would say to those listening it is the difference between giving a guarantee today and rolling the dice every year with the Committee on Appropriations, and we know from history that we have been unable to meet that commitment rolling the dice every year. Now is the time to make the guarantee. Just a little over a year ago, the President signed the No Child Left Behind bill and promised a great deal of more resources to our States and our school boards in exchange for numerous responsibilities that we put upon them; and yet just a little over a year later, we are already failing to make our commitment on No Child Left Behind. This year we are $9 billion short. We need to meet our commitments we made on special ed more than 20 years ago. We need to meet our commitments we made in No Child Left Behind. We should not be pitting these groups against each other. There should not be competition in funds between special education and all other education. Let us vote today to provide our schools and our children the resources we have promised. Give this House an opportunity to do it. Why are we afraid to let 435 Members vote on that issue?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this body very long, but I have quickly learned that the titles we give bills often come out of ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The title of this bill is ``Protecting Commerce.'' The way I read this bill, it is protecting those gun dealers who are engaged in wrong-doing. I am very disappointed that this bill is even on the floor. I had an amendment proposed that I took to the Committee on Rules the other day; and unfortunately, they did not approve it. I represent an area that was recently ravaged just last fall by a sniper. This body at that time was taking up this legislation and, in deference to the victims' families, took this legislation off the floor. But by taking this up today, we are adding insult to injury to the victims and the families of those victims. We are rubbing salt in their wounds because many of the families of those victims decided to go to court. They went to court. They took their case to court against a gun dealer whose activities over many years had shown a pattern of negligence that could very well have contributed to the suffering in their families. And this legislation which was taken off the floor in deference to those victims will now deny them their fair day in court. They are not going to get a fair hearing. And I find this decision of this body to proceed on this to be an insult, not just to those families, but really to decency and justice in the United States. I had an amendment that would have addressed an issue that was adopted in the middle of the night a couple of months ago as part of the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. At that time we exempted the ATF from requirements that all other Federal agencies are subject to under the Freedom of Information Act to get the information collected with the ATF with respect to those gun dealers who are engaged actively in selling to the criminal market. Why do we want to hide that information from the American people? But we did this in the middle of the night. And so I had an amendment proposed to reinstate the ability of the American people to have access to that information. The committee denied us that opportunity. I think we should have had a fair debate on that question. This bill protects gun dealers who are engaged in wrong doing. It is unfair to all those gun dealers and manufacturers out there who are playing by the rules. It is unfair to them because it taints them with the wrong-doing of a few. And what this bill does is give protection, not to those who are engaged in the fair dealing in guns. What this does is protect those who are engaged in wrong-doing, those who are engaged in selling mostly to the criminal market, and we have already provided them some additional protection by denying the American people access about who they are. And now they are further shielding them from the justice that American families and the victims are due in this great country. I am sorry we are carving out a special exception for these wrong-doers, and I urge the body to reject this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Make-A-Wish Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic, a great member of the community I represent, and an organization I am proud to call ``neighbor.'' Today, April 7, 2003, the foundation marks its 20th anniversary. The foundation is a nonprofit organization that fulfills the wishes of children facing life-threatening illnesses to enrich the human experience with hope, strength and joy. The foundation's mission is pure as it is simple--to give children facing illnesses such as cancer, pediatric AIDS and heart disease something positive to think about instead of doctors visits, hospitals and medicine. The Make-A-Wish Foundation fulfills each of these children's greatest wish. Whether the wish is to visit a theme park, meet a sports hero or movie star, or army soldier, the foundation works to make each child feel special. The Make-A-Wish Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic serves children who reside in Maryland, Washington, DC, Northern Virginia, and Delaware. The foundation, which is headquartered in Kensington, MD--my hometown-- also has offices in Baltimore, LaVale, Maryland, and Wilmington, Delaware. I'd like to recognize some of my constituents who were there to help start the organization 20 years ago: Barbara Manfuso Appleby, Deborah Camalier Walker, BJ Bralower, Harry Martens III. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to report to you that the Make-A-Wish Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic has fulfilled the wishes of more than 3,800 children who reside in Maryland, Washington, DC, Northern Virginia, and Delaware including more than 1,500 from Maryland--that's 75 young Marylanders a year. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you an example of the joy Make-A-Wish Foundation brings to young citizens in need. Ryan is a young man from Silver Spring, MD, who wished for a companion--the four- legged kind. The Make-A-Wish Foundation recently fulfilled Ryan's wish for a dog. Ryan's father reports that the Ryan's new friend, named Chi-Chi, has brought pure joy to the young boy's life. ``They play together like they have known each other forever,'' he said. It is my pleasure to share with the U.S. House of Representatives the accomplishments of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we take up this budget debate at a moment of great national challenge. The men and women of our armed forces have begun military action in Iraq. We wish them a swift and successful end to hostilities with a minimum loss of life on all sides. At this moment, when they are demonstrating such courage and sacrifice, we here at home must make responsible decisions about the kind of America we want for them and our children. The decisions we make tonight will affect the well being of our troops and all Americans for years to come. We must make important decisions about the future economic health of our nation and what investments we decide to make for the common good. We need to adopt an economic plan that will put America back to work and a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. Just as each family must make tough decisions about their own household budgets, so must we make tough decisions for our entire American family. How we decide to invest our collective resources should tell us a lot about what we care about as a people and who we are. The budgets and economic plans we adopt should reflect the values and priorities of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the people in my district. I think I understand their priorities. And I believe that what they care about is what every American cares about. They want a country where every child has the opportunity to get a great start in life with a first rate education. They want a country where every American has access to quality health care. They want an America where there is a job for every individual ready to roll up their sleeves and go to work. And they want to know that their government is taking all reasonable steps to protect our homeland and be prepared to respond to national emergencies. These are the simple things we want for our families, our neighbors and our fellow Americans. We are a great nation. We can do these things. Unfortunately, the Republican budget before us does not begin to meet the needs and priorities of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, just a short time ago I had the privilege of sitting in this chamber when the President gave his State of the Union address. At the outset of his speech, he made the following statement: ``We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations.'' Unfortunately, neither the budget submitted by the President nor the Republican Budget Committee proposal before us today passes that test. In fact the budget before us today does exactly what the President says he does not want to do. It does ignore our problems and, if we don't fix those problems we will be simply passing the buck to future Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations. Look at education. Last year, with great fanfare, the President signed the Leave No Child Behind bill at the White House. Yet the ink was barely dry before the administration submitted a budget that fell well short of the promised funding. Well, when you leave the funding behind, you leave millions of children behind with nothing but broken promises. And the Republican proposal falls $9 billion short--almost 25 percent--of the funds authorized. That is a terrible message to send to our school children and teachers. Look at health care. The Republican budget contains no meaningful proposal to address the problem of the 41 million Americans who have no health insurance. Apparently the Republican budget proposes to leave this problem to future Congresses and generations. How about domestic security? The Republican's proposed budget ignores many of the needs outlined by the agency heads at the U.S. Customs Service, the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy and elsewhere. They have said they need far more resources to meet the threat than what is proposed in the Republican budget. So what have the House Republicans proposed? What is their top domestic priority? Another huge tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits the super wealthy. Like the President, the House Republicans have decided that the most pressing domestic problem--the one issue that cannot wait--is that the super wealthy are paying too much in taxes. That comes on the heels of the $1.4 trillion tax cut from 2001 that disproportionately benefits the very wealthy. And what will be the result of the Republican tax cut plan directed mostly to the wealthy? Even administration officials have conceded that it will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy right now. The real result will be rivers of red ink and rising interest rates. The Republican plan would result in a $324 billion deficit this year and lead to one of the sharpest reversals in America's fiscal fortunes in history. And that doesn't even include one penny of the cost of the ongoing war with Iraq and its aftermath. The President's policies would take us from a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years to a projected $2.1 trillion deficit. The Republican Budget Committee proposal masks these long-term deficits by calling for huge and unrealistic cuts. The actual result of their tax cut proposals will be exploding deficits. Who's going to pick up the tab for this growing mountain of debt? The American people of course. It's simple. There are only two ways to deal with it in the long run. Either we substantially raise taxes on the next generation or we dramatically cut the areas of largest expenditure--Social Security and Medicare. Already, funds from the Social Security trust fund are going to pay for the President's last round of tax cuts. Remember that ``lock box?'' Well, the lock has been picked and the raid is on. The Republican budget plan makes the problem even worse. It is a guided missile aimed at the heart of Social Security. And its not just money in the trust fund that will be lost; we will also lose the trust of the American people. So, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned with the reckless economic course proposed in the Republican budget. It does exactly what the President said in his State of the Union that he does not want to do-- it ignores our very real current needs, and passes on the burdens of huge tax cuts to Social Security, Medicare and future Congresses and generations. I believe the Republican budget plan is out of touch with the true hopes and aspirations of the American people. We have an obligation to confront our needs squarely now. We need to talk straight to the American people. The Democratic budget alternatives we are debating tonight all reflect the values and priorities of the American people better than the Republican plan. They correct the serious defects in the proposed Republican budget. All of them provide a great national investment in education, health care, homeland security, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. And they all do so without running up the huge deficits and debt contained in the Republican plan. One shortcoming in the Democratic plans, however, is that--although they all provide a greater investment in our children's education than the Republican proposal, none of them reach the full level of funding promised in the Leave No Child Behind legislation. Full funding for Leave No Child Behind, IDEA and the other educational commitments we have made must be a top priority. I will continue to press for a budget that keeps all the promises we have made America's children. While I am disappointed that the Democratic alternatives do not provide for full funding of these educational commitments, they come far closer than the Republican proposal. They also meet many other needs that are neglected in the Republican budget. I hope this Congress will adopt an economic plan and a budget that reflects the true priorities of the American people and does not pass the buck to future generations.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to take some time to address one of the most serious questions facing our Nation today, whether we go to war against Iraq in the next few weeks. The tragic attacks upon our country on September 11, 2001, transformed our thinking about national security in this country. In the wake of September 11, the Bush administration rightly sought to define the fundamental mission of American power around the goal of fighting international terrorism. After September 11, the international community rallied behind America's war on terrorism with unprecedented unity and diplomatic, military, intelligence and other support. For the first time in its history, NATO invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty declaring the September 11 attack to be an attack on all 19 NATO member countries. Within 24 hours of its introduction by the United States, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution unanimously calling on all member countries to support the war on terror. The subsequent U.S.-led military action against the Taliban forces in Afghanistan and the reconstruction efforts that followed received broad support from the international community. Now less than 18 months later, the situation has changed dramatically. Polls show that anti-American sentiment is rising around the world, and some 70 percent of the world's citizens believe that the United States presents the greatest threat to world peace today, ahead of Iraq and North Korea. U.S. relations with many of our traditional allies in the North Atlantic Alliance are more strained than at any point in that organization's history. Moderates in the Muslim world feel isolated and have begun to question their relationship with the United States. Our credibility has been damaged, and our moral authority eroded. Many serious threats to our security are not receiving the attention they deserve. How did we get to this state of affairs just 18 months after the world community united behind U.S. leadership in the war on terrorism? How did we so quickly squander the reservoir of goodwill that we had immediately after September 11? The answer lies squarely with the Bush administration's defense and foreign policies and the arrogance with which they have conducted those policies. Following the successful military campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the administration began to redirect its energies toward Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, his speech delivered just 4 months after the terrible al Qaeda attacks on our country, the President identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the Axis of Evil; but very quickly thereafter it became clear that the administration would focus its attention narrowly on just one of these, Iraq. And even while bin Laden, the architect of the September 11 attacks, was still at large, Saddam Hussein took his place as the symbol of the new threat facing America. Let me make something crystal clear here. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and his quest for weapons of mass destruction does pose a threat. The question for our country is what is the nature and extent of that threat, and what is the best way for us to address it. I believe that our objective in Iraq should be Iraqi compliance with the U.N. resolutions that require Iraq to disarm and eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and its missiles that exceed the 93-mile range. I also believe that we must accomplish that objective in a way that strengthens rather than diminishes our national security. It would be a tragic irony indeed if in the name of fighting terrorism we made Americans less rather than more secure, both today and in the future. Tonight I want to address three areas: First, the Bush administration's approach to Iraq; second, the implications for America's national security of that approach; and third, where do we go from here. So first, the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. Following the President's 2002 Axis of Evil speech, the administration's goal of regime change in Iraq began to take shape quickly. As columnist William Safire observed, regime change is a diplomatic euphemism for overthrow of government or the toppling of Hussein. On February 5, 2002, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, ``We still believe strongly in regime change in Iraq, and we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about.'' By March of that year the debate in Washington over the pros and cons of military action against Iraq was fully engaged in the newspapers, the talk shows and the backrooms. Kenneth Adelman, President Reagan's arms control czar and a close ally of the hawks in the administration, wrote in the Washington Post that military action to remove Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq would be ``a cake walk.'' Others, including former National Security Advisers to the President's father, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, III, argued openly at that time against unilateral U.S. action to deal with Saddam. Even the superhawks within the administration recognized that providing a legal rationale for regime change outside the context of the United Nations could prove tricky. While we may have the power, the power to go around knocking off nasty dictators, nothing under international law gives one country the right to invade another simply to change the regime. So what to do? The Bush administration needed an argument, an argument that would provide the legal underpinning for unilateral American military action against Iraq or other nations that we determine to be a similar threat, and the answer devised by the administration was laid out in September 2002 in the national security strategy document, the so-called Doctrine of Preventive War. That theory is simple. It is also tempting. It goes like this: If we believe that a country will use weapons of mass destruction or arm terrorists with weapons of mass destruction against us, then we would ``not hesitate to act alone if necessary to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively.'' In other words, the United States has the right to strike militarily, even if we have no evidence that such activities are occurring. We do not have to know that an attack is imminent, we can act on our belief that such action may occur at some point. It may sound good, but it does not take much to see that this doctrine is a recipe for international chaos. Mr. Speaker, just imagine if India and Pakistan adopted this approach, South Asia would be decimated. The Preventive War Doctrine violates every principle of international law that the United States has fought to uphold. The Bush administration was in fact asserting that the United States would be exempt from the very rules we expect all other nations in the international community to obey, because under international law we, and any other country, already have the right to take military action to defend ourselves against an imminent attack upon ourselves or our citizens. If we know another country is about to launch missiles against us, we do not have to wait for the missiles to land, we can act preemptively. If we know a foreign government is arming terrorists with weapons of any kind, including weapons of mass destruction, we do not have to wait in order to strike. We can take preemptive action under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter in the face of that kind of imminent threat. But Iraq does not fit into that framework. The administration has never claimed that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks. It is not an imminent threat. It is not poised to attack us. We have no evidence that it has transferred or is going to transfer weapons of mass destruction to any terrorist group. It has never possessed missiles capable of delivering weapons onto U.S. soils, and it is currently in the process under the U.N. regime of destroying its missiles with a range of over 93 miles. Not even this administration has claimed that an Iraqi attack is imminent. Now as the administration rolled out its new theory of preventive war, and molded its approach to Iraq it did not want to go to the United Nations originally, and it also wanted to cut Congress out of the process in the early days. Administration lawyers claimed that the January 12, 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing the first President Bush to use force in the Persian Gulf War gave President Bush, the son, the right to send American troops into Iraq without further Congressional action. The American people back then sensed that things were not going the right way. Polls showed that Americans might support military action against Iraq, but were not comfortable with America going it alone. And while the administration never conceded the legal point about having to go to Congress, it recognized the practical and political importance of requesting Congressional support, and it got it. The Congressional resolution was, in my view, much too broad. It was a blank check. It gave the President the authority to take whatever military action he deemed appropriate without returning here to Congress for consent. Nevertheless, the Congressional debate and the resolution that was passed did reinforce the growing consensus that the President should work with our allies and the United Nations. In November of last year, the administration itself, divided and under pressure from the American people, from Congress and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, took the very important decision to seek a new United Nations resolution on Iraq and put U.S. policy into the United Nations framework. It was a great triumph for foreign policy of this country that on November 8, 2002, the United States got a unanimous Security Council vote for Resolution 1441, calling for resumption of inspections and enforcement of the U.N. resolutions on disarmament in Iraq. But what were the implications for us of going to the Security Council? The decision to pursue action through the United Nations may have solved one problem, but it created another for the Bush administration. The administration's goal of regime change; in other words, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, did not fit with the more limited objective of enforcing Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament. Administration hardliners who opposed going to the U.N. in the first place understood that these different goals could lead to very different approaches. They did not want to get mired in the U.N. process, and understood that their goal of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power was not necessarily consistent with the goal of enforcing U.N. resolutions. It was going to be like trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. And indeed, taking the case to the United Nations Security Council led to the clash of goals that is playing out today in the United Nations as we speak. The U.N. strategy, going to the U.N., required the administration to shift its rhetoric and public justification of U.S. policy toward Iraq from regime change to the more limited objective, enforcing Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. But short of a coup, or Saddam Hussein leaving Iraq, regime change obviously requires military action, but enforcing the U.N. resolutions does not necessarily require toppling Saddam Hussein. And while military action may ultimately be required to enforce U.N. resolutions, the two goals, regime change and compliance with U.N. resolutions, dictate very different approaches and very different timetables. In the U.N. context, the context we took ourselves in November of last year, regime change is the last-ditch option. It only becomes a choice after it is determined that disarmament has failed. How and when you reach that point and what efforts must be taken before you get to that point is not clearly spelled out in the resolution. In this process that we set up, the findings and judgment of the international inspectors headed by Hans Blix and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, hold enormous weight. And Iraq through its actions or inactions can influence the process and its outcome. The cost of going to the Security Council was clearly going to be over control of the timetable as we move forward. But while the administration took the decision to go to the United Nations, it did not slow or adjust its military timetable. The deployment of U.S. forces went forward at an accelerated pace. The deadline for full deployment was mid-February or early March. We now have over 250,000 troops in the Gulf; and according to news reports, they are ready to attack whenever a decision is made. But the only deadline spelled out in Security Council Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the Council on November 8, was that inspectors were to report to the Council on progress of disarmament, quote, ``60 days after inspections resume,'' which turned out to be January 27, 2003. Resolution 1441 did not provide any guidance as to what would happen if Saddam Hussein was found to be at least in partial compliance with the inspections by this deadline, or if there was not a decision in the council to take military action by then. It did not foresee the situation we are in today, a U.N. process focused on the goal of disarmament with one timetable and the U.S. goal of regime change with its own military timetable. Let me now talk about some of the other arguments that the administration has advanced as it faced increasing criticism for its approach, because there have been a number of additional arguments that have been made beyond the original argument that Iraq's quest for weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that it will give them to terrorists pose an unacceptable risk. The additional arguments rolled out by the administration include, number one, an alleged link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, a link they have failed to prove; two, the brutal nature of Saddam's regime and the need to liberate the Iraqi people; and, three, most recently, in the President's February 26 speech before the American Enterprise Institute, the argument that the overthrow of Hussein would be a catalyst for the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East and help bring about a final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Bush administration's new domino theory. I want to discuss just two of these here: first, the argument that regime change is necessary because Saddam Hussein is evil; and, second, the claim that military action will prompt a democratic domino effect throughout the region. First, the argument that military action is justified because Saddam Hussein is, quote, ``an evil ruler.'' The hypocrisy of using this argument to justify regime change is difficult to ignore. Let us not forget that during the Iran-Iraq war the United States sided with Saddam Hussein. One of the central architects of current Bush administration policy, now-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, played a key role in the Reagan administration's decision to embrace Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s. Declassified U.S. Government documents show that when Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 as a special Presidential envoy to pave the way for the normalization of U.S.-Iraq relations, Iraq was using chemical weapons on a daily basis in defiance of international conventions. Five years later, in 1988, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, I traveled to the Iraq-Turkish border as a staffer on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee with my colleague Peter Galbraith. At that time, thousands of Kurds were fleeing across the border to seek refuge in Turkey. We interviewed hundreds of those refugees and documented Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people. Our report formed the basis for legislation to impose economic sanctions against Iraq for its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. The bill passed the United States Senate; but the Reagan administration, which included many of the key players in today's debate, many people who are now in the Bush administration, opposed and helped stop that sanctions legislation when it came here to the House of Representatives. I challenge anyone to explain to me how you can oppose economic sanctions in 1988 in response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against civilians and then today turn around and say that those same actions justify U.S. military force in 2003. Moreover, if Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own people was the reason for military action, we should have finished the job during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq has not used chemical weapons since 1988, since the time my colleague Peter Galbraith and I went to the Iraq-Turkish border at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. But 3 years later in 1991, not only did we not remove Hussein in Baghdad but at the end of the war we looked the other way, the United States looked the other way for many days, while Saddam Hussein turned his guns on the Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. This history, I think, exposes the hypocrisy of the position the government has taken today and the willingness of some people in the administration to say anything to further their ends. The liberation of the Iraqi people is certainly a desirable goal, but it is also an argument that could be applied to many other countries with brutal regimes around the world. It is not by itself sufficient justification for U.S. military action. Now, more recently, the administration has advanced the argument that the removal of Saddam Hussein will not only liberate the Iraqi people but will result in the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a very attractive goal, but one this administration has neglected until now. We have made only feeble efforts to push even generally supportive governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to move toward more openness and more democracy. And after calling for greater democratization of the Palestinian Authority many months ago, the administration has done nothing to help bring that vision closer to reality. The belief that democracy is going to somehow blossom in the Middle East as a result of U.S. military occupation of Iraq is a dangerous hallucination. Since when do we think we can implant democratic institutions throughout a region with no experience in democracy through some kind of big bang theory? True democratic change must come from within the region. It cannot be imposed from without. We have not begun to succeed at building democracy in Afghanistan. On what basis do we think we can do much better in Iraq, let alone the entire Middle East? We need only look at the Balkans, for example, at how difficult the task will be. Four years after military intervention, NATO has 35,000 troops stationed in Kosovo, a region of less than 2 million people, and their departure date is not yet on the horizon. Most experts believe that the withdrawal of those troops and others in Bosnia would result in a return to violence and hostilities. Iraq is a country of 23 million people. Like Yugoslavia, it is an artificial construct, in this case strung together by the British colonial powers and made up of three major groups, 60 percent Shia, 30 percent Sunni, 10 percent Kurds. The President has presented this utopian vision of democracy breaking out in the Middle East after we invade Iraq. It is just as easy to imagine a scenario where difficulties in Iraq and the American action there fuel resentment toward occupying American troops and inflame the region against us, strengthening the hands of radical Islamic fundamentalists and making it more difficult to promote democracy and other U.S. goals in the region. I recently came across an analysis of the imposing postwar task that we would face in Iraq, and I would like to share it with you. This is a quotation: ``It is not clear what kind of government you would put in. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, or a Kurdish regime? Or is it one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it is set up by the U.S. military? How long does the U.S. military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government? And what happens to it when we leave?'' These are the comments of none other than then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, speaking in April 1991 in support of former President Bush's decision to turn back on the road to Baghdad after we took Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait. In fact, I agree with the 1991 Dick Cheney. It will be a difficult, a costly and risky task to undertake the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq. It will take a long time, much longer than the 2 years the administration has suggested. It will take a sizable U.S. troop presence. And the U.S. Army's top uniformed officer has estimated that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to feed the hungry and to keep the peace. Military action will also require enormous resources. Unofficial Pentagon estimates put the cost of the war alone at between $65 and $90 billion. The costs of reconstruction will be billions more. So what are the implications? What are the implications of this policy for our security? I want to offer three observations: first, that the administration's approach to Iraq and the arrogance with which it has pursued its goals has badly damaged our ability to get the cooperation we need from others to protect our security interests and wage our long-term fight against terrorism. First, the administration's policies have triggered a rapid rise in anti-American sentiment around the world. There are those whose response to this sentiment is, hey, who cares? Their attitude: we're the big guys on the block, so who cares what they think? That swagger may make us feel good, but it is foolish. I care what the rest of the world thinks. We all should. We should care for the simple reason that what others think has an impact on our security. If our actions loosen our ties to our friends and allies, it undermines our ability to work together to combat terrorism. If our actions generate hatred and fuel the ranks of al Qaeda, it will increase the risk of attack upon us. If our actions undermine public support for friendly foreign governments, we may lose much more in the long run than we gain today. We may choose not to change our policies based on what others think, but it is foolish not to try to understand the views of others when our own security is at risk. Having the support of our friends and allies in the international community is important to the achievement of most of our foreign policy objectives. With respect to Iraq, cooperation would both reduce the cost of war and increase the prospects of winning the peace. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, former President Bush and then-Secretary of State James Baker received U.N. Security Council backing for the use of force to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. They assembled an impressive coalition of forces and succeeded in sharing the burden of the war. The military forces of 18 other countries participated in the Persian Gulf War, and more than 85 percent of the costs of that war were borne by others. In the current conflict, we face the opposite problem. Instead of having others help bear the burden, we are having to pay others to participate. Hence, some have dubbed the coalition that the administration has assembled not the coalition of the willing, but the coalition of the bought. Having international support in Iraq would also greatly increase the prospects of winning the peace. In addition to providing financial and peacekeeping support, truly multilateral action in Iraq would help defuse any anger that otherwise would be directed solely against the United States. It would also be very helpful to have U.N. participation in the immediate postwar governing structure in Iraq to show that this is not a war of the United States against the Islamic and Arab worlds, but the world against Saddam Hussein. Secondly, the Bush approach to Iraq has badly soured our relations with our NATO allies. As I mentioned earlier, the first and only time in the history of NATO that we invoked article 5 of the Washington treaty declaring an attack on one member to be an attack on all was after September 11. This dramatic action was followed by unprecedented cooperation in various aspects of the war on terrorism and the U.S.-led action in Afghanistan. In January, 2002, President Bush met in the Rose Garden with German Chancellor Schroeder and warmly praised Germany's role in the fight against terrorism, in particular for hosting the Bonn conference for multilateral assistance for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the German role in training the Afghan police force. This sentiment has now given way to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's Euro-bashing, including his incendiary comments comparing Germany to Libya and Cuba. The division in NATO is greater today than at any other time in its history. Never before have several NATO allies actively worked to defeat a U.S. proposal in the Security Council. What caused this dramatic turnabout? The administration expected our allies to fall in lockstep behind its assessment of the Iraqi threat, behind its assessment of the extent to which Iraq has complied with the U.N. resolution and, most importantly, the administration's goal of regime change and its timetable for military action. This approach probably reminded many of the way the Soviet Union used to dictate to the Warsaw Pact, rather than the traditional dialogue among NATO allies. For many, the administration's ``my way or the highway'' approach to Iraq rekindled their resentment of the unilateralist approach to foreign policy issues that this administration took during its first 9 months in office, before September 11. During that period, the administration thumbed its notices at the Kyoto Treaty on global climate change, walked away from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty and an agreement to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, and demonstrated its contempt for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the International Criminal Court. While the administration could have offered amendments to address legitimate concerns with some of these agreements, it chose instead to abandon them altogether, totally dismissing the views of our allies and other nations. Much of this unilateral action was forgotten immediately after September 11, but the administration's approach to Iraq has reopened old wounds. Unless this split in the alliance is healed, damage to our interests could be great. Our allies have been extremely helpful in tracking down al Qaeda cells around the world. They have allowed U.S. troops to traverse their air space or use their territory for numerous operations outside of Europe, including the 1991 Persian Gulf War. NATO currently has 50,000 peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia, and 14 NATO allies have forces on the ground in Afghanistan. It is very difficult to imagine a successful U.S.-led operation in Iraq without the support both during the war and during the reconstruction period without the support of many of our NATO allies. Third, the administration's Iraq policy has undermined the United Nations. After the September 11 attacks, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted an American sponsored resolution to oblige all 189 member states to crack down on terrorism. Our ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, called it ``an unprecedented resolution on terrorism in the work of the United Nations.'' Today, the administration argues that the United Nations will become irrelevant if it does not immediately adopt a second resolution supporting military force in Iraq. But it is disingenuous to claim that we are concerned with the credibility of the United Nations and, at the same time, state that we will refuse to be bound by the Security Council unless it goes our way. Essentially our position is, the UN is relevant and credible only as long as it votes with us. This kind of behavior undermines the legitimacy of the Security Council and the UN process. How can we credibly seek UN assistance and cooperation in the post-war building of Iraq, as we are, if we are unwilling to show respect for the UN process? We cannot afford to forget the wide array of important issues that the United Nations deals with each day, from AIDS in Africa, peacekeeping in the Balkans, Cyprus, the Middle East and elsewhere. It is very much in our interest to have a viable and strong United Nations, and our actions should not undermine this goal. Second, the administration's approach is likely to increase the risk of terrorist attack against the United States and threatens to plant the seeds for more deep-seated resentment in the Muslim world. Last October, the CIA testified openly that Iraq for now, ``appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks.'' In the United States. But, ``should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would be much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.'' In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 6, 2003, CIA director George Tenet stated it this way: ``The situation in the Middle East continues to fuel terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment worldwide.'' In the short-term, I think it is clear that the threat to Americans will grow. The real question is whether it will lead to a higher risk of terrorist attack in the long term. Moderates in the region in the Middle East fear that a U.S. invasion will galvanize radical and ultra-conservative forces and lend them new credibility and legitimacy, swelling their ranks and increasing violent attacks. We should not forget that bin Laden has pointed to the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, our military presence there, the infidels in the Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina, as the catalyst for his deep- seated resentment of our Nation. One can only imagine that a U.S. military occupation of Baghdad, U.S. alone, could be a recruiting bonanza for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Others argue that the war on Iraq will lead to regime change in the Middle East, but not the kind the administration envisions. Instead, the first regimes to go could be in Jordan and Pakistan, where pro- western governments have a fragile hold on angry populations. If Pakistan topples, many warn, al Qaeda could gain access to the nuclear weapons that Pakistan has. The administration's single-minded focus on Iraq has also pushed out the consideration of other issues and badly skewed our national security priorities. Osama bin Laden is still at large. Despite the recent arrests in Pakistan, other key al Qaeda operatives are at large. Dramatic attacks, like the one in Bali, Indonesia, earlier this year, demonstrate that the international terrorist network is alive and well. By elevating the threat of Iraq to the most dangerous threat to American security today, the Bush administration has helped create the impression that Iraq possesses the ability somehow of ``blowing the United States off the face of the Earth.'' In fact, while Iraq certainly presents a threat to its neighbors, and, in a worst case scenario, could act to facilitate a terrible terrorist attack on this country, it does not possess nuclear weapons, which are the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction, and, unlike North Korea or Iran, is subject to an international inspections regime ongoing which can prevent it from making progress toward that goal. In fact, it is instructive to remember that of the three countries identified as the ``axis of evil'' in the President's 2002 State of the Union address, Iraq is the country farthest away from acquiring such weapons. So, far from a simple ``us versus them'' world that the Bush administration has painted, America faces a national security challenge of enormous complexity. We must simultaneously cope with several separate and potentially grave threats, from Iraq to North Korea and the continuing threat of international terrorist networks. Without progress on nuclear nonproliferation, this list could grow quickly. At the same time, we remain committed to an ongoing military presence in the states of the former Yugoslovia and to the elusive process of a negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Lack of progress in both these areas could set back American security interests and lead to an escalation in violence and terrorism. In South Asia, two nuclear countries are poised army-to-army along a fragile border. And the list goes on. Eliminating Saddam Hussein will not address these very real problems. So, finally, where do we go from here? We find ourselves at a crossroads. There is little daylight left. It is not a question of whether or not we can defeat Saddam Hussein militarily. We can. Rather, it is a question of the long-term risks to our security by proceeding in a manner that alienates our friends, creates opportunities for our foes, weakens the rule of law and undermines America's moral authority. If the threat can be met in other ways, then why would we not pursue those options to their fullest? Some have argued that it is too late, that the cost of the huge U.S. deployments overseas demand that these troops not be brought home without seeing military action. I disagree. The stakes are too high for that kind of thinking. The costs, both human and financial, of deploying U.S. troops in the region, are insignificant compared to the costs of full U.S. military intervention and reconstruction of post-war Iraq. We should not use our troop deployments as an excuse to act under an artificial timetable. Those deployments have played a role in achieving the more muscular inspections that we have seen in recent months. We can always choose to take military action, but we cannot put the genie back in the bottle once we go down that road. Last Friday, Mr. ElBaradei, the Director of the IAEA, reported that there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities in Iraq. He showed that the United States had unwittingly supplied the UN with forged documents to try and support our claim that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. The chief UN weapons inspector, Dr. Blix, who Secretary of State Powell has praised in the past as man of integrity and professionalism, Blix reported that Iraq had made progress toward disarmament and stated that the inspection process could be completed in a matter of months. The use of force is a powerful and very important tool of foreign policy, but one that should generally be used as a last resort, when all other options fail. The heightened pressure the Bush administration has brought to bear on Iraq has focused world attention on Baghdad and reaped modest, but important, results with respect to Iraqi disarmament. I think most of the world believes that enforced UN inspections still have the potential to bring us to our primary goal, the disarmament of Iraq. I believe the United States should give this process more time, both to further the goal of disarmament and to build broader international support for military action, should that become necessary to enforce the resolutions. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that the overall approach this administration has taken is taking us in a dangerous direction. I believe our moral standing, our greatest source of strength, has been diminished. We cannot build a more democratic and a more open world on the administration's policies of preventative war, disdain for international law and neglect of international cooperation. We have our work cut out for us. We must fight for policies that help rebuild America's moral authority in world affairs. We must articulate a credible alternative foreign policy doctrine that is not based on American exclusionism, but on America's stake as a leading partner in a diverse international community. We are a strong and rich country. We experienced a terrible tragedy on September 11, 2001, but we do not have to act out of fear. Our strongest weapon against hatred and extremism are our high ideals, our democratic example founded on the rule of law. We cannot, we must not, allow this administration in the name of those ideals to pursue policies that are not worthy of our Nation's great history. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 47, 48, and 49, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these rollcalls.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is actually the first time I have made remarks on this floor; and I deliberated, as I am sure many new Members do, over what subject I should address first, and I can think of no more important matter facing this Congress than the future economic health of our Nation and what investments we decide to make for the common good. The actions we take here this session will affect the well-being of Americans for generations to come. We need to adopt an economic plan that will put America back to work and a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. The budget plan submitted by the President a few weeks ago, it is a long document filled with thousands of numbers. Like most budgets, it is not exciting reading unless you like to put on the green eye shades. But it is probably the most important document we will work with this year as Members of Congress, because just as each family has to make many tough decisions about their household budgets, so must we make the tough decisions for our entire American family. And how we decide to invest our collective resources should tell us a lot about what we care about as a people and who we are as a people. The budgets and economic plans we adopt here this session I hope will reflect the priorities of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the people in my district, and I think that their priorities are the same as priorities of Americans around this country. They want a country where every child has the opportunity to get a great start in life with a first-rate education. They want a country where every American has access to quality health care. They want an America where every American and every individual who is ready to roll up his or her sleeves and go to work can find a job. And they want to know that their government is taking all reasonable steps to protect our homeland and be prepared to respond to national emergencies. These are simple things that we all want for our families. We want them for our neighbors; we want them for our fellow Americans. We are a great Nation, and we can do these things. But to do so we are going to have to work with the President to change the course that he has charted with the economic plan he has submitted and the budget that he has proposed to Congress. Just a few weeks ago I had the privilege to attend and sit in this Chamber when the President delivered his State of the Union address. I was sitting right over there. I was very eager to hear what he had to say. Very early in his speech, he made the following statement: ``We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents, to other generations.'' I must say, when I heard that statement I nearly fell out of my chair, because the budget and the economic plan proposed by the President does exactly what he says he does not want to do. It does ignore our problems; and, if we do not fix those problems, we will simply be passing the buck to future Congresses, to future Presidents, and to future generations. Let us look at education. Last year with great fanfare the President signed the Leave No Child Behind Act. But the ink was barely dry before the administration submitted a budget that fell well short of the promised funding. When you leave the funding behind, you also leave millions of children behind, and leave them with nothing but broken promises. The President's budget for the coming fiscal year promise falls $9 billion short of what had been authorized, and it is a terrible message to send to our school children and to our teachers. Let us look at health care. The President has made no meaningful proposal to address the problem of the 41 million Americans who have no health insurance. Apparently, the Bush administration proposes to leave this problem to future Congresses, to future Presidents and future generations. And how about domestic security? The President's proposed budget ignores the needs outlined by the heads of his own agencies. The U.S. Customs Service, the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy, they have all said that they need more resources to meet the threat than the President has proposed in his budget. So what has the President proposed? What is the President's top domestic priority? We have heard tonight, another huge tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits the superwealthy. Apparently the administration has decided that the most pressing domestic problem, the one issue that cannot wait, is that the superwealthy are paying too much in taxes. And this comes on the heels of the $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001 that disproportionately benefits already the very wealthy. And don't be fooled by averages. Sure, when you combine the estimated tax break of $325,000 that Bloomberg News says Vice President Cheney will receive, and others with very high incomes with the small tax breaks that most will receive, you get an average refund of over $1,000. That's like saying if Bill Gates were elected to the House of Representatives, on average, all 435 members in this chamber would be multi-millionaires. It's a great statistic, but nobody is really any better off. What is the result? What is the result of the President's tax plan? Even the administration officials have conceded it will do virtually nothing to help get the economy going right now, to help stimulate our economy, to get people back to work; and the real result, as we have seen, will be rivers of red ink and rising interest rates. The President's plan would result in a $304 billion deficit this year, and his plans will lead to the sharpest reversal in America's fiscal fortunes in history. We have gone from a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years to a projected $2.1 trillion deficit, and that does not even include the cost of war in Iraq and the aftermath. As our colleague from Illinois stated, just this week we have promised Turkey $24 billion, and that before the conflict has even begun. This administration has not begun to come clean on the costs of war. So who is going to pick up this mountain of debt? In the end, it is the American people who will always be left holding the bag. And there are only two ways to deal with the debt in the long term. We all know that. Either you raise taxes on our children in the next generation, or you deeply cut expenditures. And as our colleague from Virginia just pointed out, where you have to go to cut expenditures to make up these deficits are Medicare and Social Security. There is no other way to do it. The President is already using the funds from the Social Security trust funds to pay for his tax cuts. The lockbox we all heard so much about, well, it was picked so long ago, and the raid is on. The President's plan is a guided missile aimed at Social Security and Medicare, and it is not just the money in the trust fund that will be lost; we are also going to lose the trust of the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned with the reckless economic course that the President has set. It does exactly what he said he did not want to do. It ignores our very real needs and passes on the burdens of tax cuts to Social Security, Medicare, future congresses and future generations. I believe his plan is out of touch with the true hopes and aspirations of the American people. We have an obligation to confront these issues squarely, as we are talking about tonight. We need to talk straight to the American people; and I hope this Congress, before we get out, will adopt an economic plan and a budget that reflects the true priorities of the American people and does not pass the buck to future generations.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed the Omnibus Appropriations bill, to fund federal government operations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2003. This Omnibus package combines 11 of 13 separate funding bills that should have been completed months ago. But rather than conduct hearings and encourage thoughtful debate on America's budget priorities, the Republican leadership in this Congress has cobbled together a 3000 page, $400 billion mega-spending bill in mostly back room deals. And now they ask for a simple yes or no vote on this huge package. Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress and I am extremely disappointed by the process. The American people have been shut out of the process. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could use this vote as a lesson for my three children and children throughout my district, to teach them how the great democratic institutions of our land reflect the will of American people. But today, Mr. Speaker, the democratic and deliberative process have been hijacked. The Committee system of this Congress has been bypassed. No hearings. No testimony from impartial experts. No debate. No markup. Nothing. Mr. Speaker, this is no way to begin this new session of Congress. The full House has been given little opportunity to debate, and no opportunity to amend this huge bill. This is a dreadfully flawed backroom process that has allowed logging and oil interests to attach riders that are harmful to our environment. These riders, which have nothing to do with the appropriations process, allow for clear-cutting in national forests, prevent Forest Service administration decisions from being challenged in court, and remove a House-passed provision that would have barred preliminary work on a drilling program in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But at the same time, this omnibus spending bill does include certain provisions that I strongly support. Among them are the full 4.1 percent cost-of-living pay raise for federal employees that the Administration had so strongly opposed, and a desperately needed adjustment to the Medicare reimbursement formula for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers that will improve access to care for thousands of patients. This matter should have been addressed months ago; it should not have been necessary to include it in this bill. Although I support the federal pay raise and the Medicare formula fix, I am angered that they are being held hostage by the disastrous, short-sighted riders that wreak havoc on our environment. I object to this kind of back-room political extortion, a cynical abuse of the legislative process to advance the interests of a few over the needs of many. That is why I voted in favor of the Motion to Recommit this bill and consider an alternative that better reflects our needs and priorities. But since the motion to recommit did not pass, I was forced to cast a yes-or-no vote on the final package. Even with the terrible riders, I could not vote to deny our federal employees the pay raise they deserve, or to deny seniors access to Medicare by failing to adjust the reimbursement formula, or to deny funding for schools or homeland security or the many other needs that are funded in this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, those of us who support progressive environmental and conservation policies will persevere. We will keep fighting these short-sighted policies. The American people do not support them and they will not stand. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better so we can do better. We can do so much better.