Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, none of the goals of IDEA can be achieved without full funding. Today, the majority is refusing even to allow amendments to improve the funding level in the bill. Congress authorized full funding of IDEA 28 years ago and still has failed to deliver. In 1975, Congress authorized funding to cover 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a child with a disability. President Bush has requested $1 billion increases for IDEA in each of his last 2 budgets. But according to the U.S. Department of Education, providing $1 billion increases each year will never allow IDEA to reach full funding. When it comes to IDEA funding, Republicans are dwelling on the past, rather than focusing on the future. The majority consistently points to increases in IDEA funding in past years and this is true. However, this doesn't respond to the needs of school districts now. That is why we need to ensure full funding of IDEA over the next six years. During debate on the No Child Left Behind Act, the majority claimed we had to reform IDEA before providing full funding. The bill before us supplies the Majority's reforms, yet reneges on full funding. What is the excuse now? Since 1977, 22 separate bills and resolutions have passed in the House and Senate calling for fund funding of IDEA with support of a majority of Republicans. It is time for Congress to make good on this promise. In recent years, the Republican majority have said that there is not enough money to appropriate full funding, however they seem to be able to find enough money to give a large tax cut to those who don't need it. I offered an amendment in the Education and the Workforce Committee with Representative Andrews to remove the funding cap from the bill. I did so because today seven states stand to lose IDEA funding under this cap, and another seven may soon be affected. While the Chairman did agree to move the cap to 13.5 percent--and I thank him for working with us--I still believe that a cap is fundamentally unfair. Not just unfair to the 50 states but also to the American children. Even with this cap on funding, states and schools are still required to educate students that are identified as having special need even when the population exceeds the cap. So, why not allow the funding? While I recognize that the cap reflects an attempt to reduce inappropriate identification of students as disabled, I believe that a cap does not get at the problem. Simply setting a cap does not address the issue of how students are being identified. I believe that states and localities should be allowed to improve this inappropriate identification through professional development. I applaud the chairman for including increased funding for professional development and research funding to reduce inappropriate identification of children with disabilities, including disproportionate assignment of minority children. We should allow these funds to work. Let me point out a good point of today's bill. I am glad to see that section 674(c) recognizes the continued importance of funding an organization that ``provides free educational materials, including textbooks, in accessible media for visually impaired and print-disabled students in elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and graduate schools.'' As you may know, Mr. Speaker, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, located in New Jersey in my district, has received federal funding for nearly thirty years to produce, distribute and promote the use of accessible-format versions of printed textbooks free to students. During this time, they have helped hundreds of thousands of students who would have otherwise not had access to the textbooks they need to receive the kind of ``free and appropriate'' education that is outlined under IDEA. I commend RFB&D and want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress the oustanding work of this organization. I would to thank Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Castle for maintaining this important program in the law. I would like to express my concern, however, that funding for this activity is no longer a requirement for the Secretary of Education, as is the case under current law. I believe this must be changed and this requirement should be restored, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues to resolve this issue during conference with the Senate.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for introducing this resolution (H. Con. Res. 149) and I applaud Congress for supporting the annual celebration of Patriots' Day. Every year the states of Maine and Massachusetts celebrate the events of April 19th, 1775, when the first American patriots stood up to British troops, leading to the beginning of the Revolutionary War and the birth of our nation. We need to do more to bring national recognition to this celebration of the brave men and women who sacrificed so much on the battlefield to help our nation achieve independence. It is important that we honor all of our first patriots and we should help many more Americans learn as much as possible about the birth of our nation and the hard-fought struggle that accompanied it. That is why Congress should do more to preserve our precious heritage and to celebrate not just the events and battles that started the Revolutionary War, but all of the major battles that shaped the outcome of this historic conflict with has changed the ensuring course of human history. We should certainly celebrate Paul Revere's midnight ride and the Battles of Lexington and Concord as the crucial opening salvos in our national struggle for independence. At the same time, we should also recognize that the Revolutionary War spanned six years and claimed the lives of nearly 4500 Americans, demonstrating not only the cost of liberty but also the willingness of colonial patriots to make the ultimate sacrifice to secure our freedom. In particular, I want my colleagues to know that New Jersey was of critical importance during the American Revolution due to its strategic location between the British armies headquarters in New York City and the Continental Congress sitting in the City of Philadelphia. General George Washington spent almost half of the period of the American Revolution personally commanding troops of the Continential Army in New Jersey, including two severe winter encampments at Morristown. The early turning point in the war played out across multiple battlefields in and around my congressional district in Central New Jersey. It was during ten fateful days of the American Revolution between December 25, 1776 and January 3, 1777 that General Washington recrossed the Delaware River and won crucial battles at Trenton and Princeton, after having retreated from New York City to Pennsylvania at the risk of near total defeat. New Jersey's critical role in America's fight for independence is part of our national story and thus should be preserved for all Americans. This is why Congressman Frelinghuysen and I have introduced the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Historical Heritage Act of 2003 (H.R. 524). Our bill would establish a national heritage area to preserve, promote, and connect central New Jersey's extraordinary Revolutionary War battlefield sites through a greenway and interpretive programs for all Americans to enjoy. We hope this much-needed, bipartisan legislation can be enacted during the 108th Congress to protect these hallowed grounds and educate future generations about the struggle to create this great nation. I wholeheartedly support the resolution before us and hope for an ever-widening celebration of Patriots' Day all across America, not just in Massachusetts and Maine. In the same spirit, I urge our bipartisan leadership and all of my colleagues to support prompt and favorable legislative action to create the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center's new education initiative. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men--about 220,900 new cases will be diagnosed this year. Approximately 28,900 men will be stricken down by this disease--one that devastates so many families by killing so many fathers, brothers, and sons. I am proud to say that the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center in central New Jersey is working hard to improve these statistics. On April 12, the Gallo Center will kick off its prostate cancer education initiative with a statewide health event held at 13 separate sites. At these sites, individuals and families will be able to get information and talk to representatives of the Gallo Center, local health departments, and other officials. In the fight against prostate cancer, it is vitally important that we concentrate on education and screening. Catching the disease early drastically improves the chances of surviving, and lowers the need for the expensive treatments used during later stages of the cancer. For those who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, the Gallo Center is New Jersey's only specialized prostate health resource at a National Cancer Institute--the Cancer Institute of New Jersey. The Center is also an advanced research facility that transforms laboratory discoveries into clinical practice. While I am glad that New Jersey can rely on such a world-class facility for prostate cancer research and treatment, I am even more pleased to learn of the Gallo Center's educational and outreach efforts. Prostate cancer is a disease that disproportionately affects elderly men and African-Americans, and it is vital that health care professionals reach out to these populations to inform them of the warning signs of the disease. Again, let me applaud the Gallo Center's efforts to inform and educate New Jersey's citizens about this devastating disease.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I rise to address this amendment, which seems to me to be a harmless amendment. It may result in applying some more money for LIHEAP. In fact, the word ``may'' is the key word in the amendment. So that is not a bad thing, except for the damage that might be done in the process. There has been quite a bit of discussion today and there will be quite a bit more about how much petroleum would come from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is not a lot. And also, though, a lot will be said about the damage that would be done in getting that oil. We have heard some discussion about the footprint and just how small it will be. Let me just mention one thing that is often not considered that will explain how the footprint really is larger. Take, for example, the ice roads that would be built every winter to allow trucks to drive to and from the rigs. Their environmental impact is not only the effects on the ground, which I would say is considerable, but in the fresh water drawn from nearby lakes. In fact, there is not enough fresh water. The effect of drawing this water from the lakes in order to build the ice roads allegedly, purportedly, so as not to damage the environment, will leave these lakes in such a depleted situation that they will freeze all the way through and die. So there is, indeed, this kind of footprint that extends beyond just the poured concrete area. So we may through this amendment get a little more money for LIHEAP, but it could be at great cost.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding to me, and I rise in support of H. Res. 165 to draw this Chamber's attention to this opportunity that is not yet lost in Cyprus. Cyprus has suffered from ethnic strife among the people of Cyprus, and I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, for using that phrasing, among the people of Cyprus for decades and has been physically divided since Turkish armed forces invaded and occupied the northern third of the island in 1974 after a Greek-led coup. There have been efforts by the Greek Cypriots over the last year. There have been encouraging words from Turkey. Turkey's new ruling party suggested a change in Turkish policy toward Cyprus, but no agreement has been reached. Tens of thousands of Cypriots have taken to the streets in recent months, particularly in the Turkish areas, in support of this settlement, but Denktash ultimately imperiled the recent round of talks by refusing to take the plan directly to the Turkish Cypriot people for a referendum. As a result, Secretary General Annan has ended official U.N. efforts to broker a settlement. This is a severe disappointment to me, to my Greek and my Turkish American constituents in New Jersey, and to all the people of Cyprus, but we must not accept the end of this latest round of talks as the end of the road. Peace rarely comes easily. Peace in Cyprus is still possible, and as Cyprus prepares to enter the European Union, let us do our part to get the peace process back on track. I commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). His resolution would help. Let us pass it promptly.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as our nation is at war in the Persian Gulf, many men and women who serve in our nation's armed forces have been called up to active duty, including many college and university students. Many of these students participate in federal financial aid programs, and in order to ensure the utmost flexibility during the time that they are engaged in military service, it is essential that the Department of Education be given extended waiver authority to accommodate the needs of our troops. This is why I support H.R. 1412 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The bill will extend the waive authority granted to the Secretary of Education to allow him to provide the appropriate assistance and flexibility to our men and women in uniform as they transfer in and out of postsecondary education during a time of war. The extended waiver authority provided for in the HEROES bill addresses the need to assist students who are being asked to disrupt their lives in the defense of the freedoms we all hold so precious. It will also allow the Secretary to address events now unforeseen. It also urges all postsecondary institutions to provide a full refund of tuition, fees and other charges to students who are members of the Armed Forces or are serving on active duty, including the Reserves and National Guard. What a positive message it would send to the hundreds of thousands of American men and women in uniform currently risking their lives to help them with their student loans. Recall the fine, positive effect of the GI education bills. Our men and women deserve our help. As the brave men and women of the United States are engaged in this difficult and dangerous war we should limit the negative impacts on them and their families here at home. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 1412 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the leadership of the House of Representatives narrowly passed a budget resolution on March 20 that would severely cut veterans benefits, including health care, disability compensation, pensions, and other benefits. Now, 211 of my colleagues and I opposed this budget resolution and many of us voted instead for an alternative budget resolution preferred by the American Legion and other veterans groups that would have increased veterans benefits. I am sad to say it did not pass. Now today, the majority party voted for a motion to instruct conferees presented by the Democrats. I must question the seriousness of this vote. Maybe it is April Fool's Day, but cutting veterans benefits does not seem very funny to me. How can Congress even consider cutting veterans benefits during a time of war? I must question the seriousness of it because only a week ago when my Republican friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, expressed his own outrage at the leadership's budget proposal, he was severely rebuked by his own party. Now, no American should be rebuked for standing up for veterans. The promise that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) got and this motion to instruct today should not have been necessary. It should have been in the original budget resolution that the veterans were looked after, that their disability payments would be taken care of. Certainly at a time of war and great sacrifice by our Nation's armed services, we cannot let these cuts stand.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, as thousands fled over lower Manhattan during the terrorist strikes, many ran towards the burning buildings. These brave men and women were first responders--the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who risk their lives every day to protect their fellow citizens. It would seem like the least we could do for them would be to not only applaud their efforts, but also provide them with support they need so they can do their jobs even better. Unfortunately, this Congress has found it appropriate not to support, but to shortchange these everyday heroes. A month and a half ago, we finally managed to pass the FY03 spending bill. Many of us here in this body sought to add vital funding for first responders, but we were denied. Our first responders were denied. Today, apparently, this body is poised to again deny our first responders--in this case, the men and women who will first respond to the unthinkable: a smallpox attack. The need for the president's smallpox vaccination program is questionable, but now that the program exists, there is no doubt that we need to address compensation for those who volunteer for and are injured by the vaccine. In terms of negative side effects, this vaccine--essentially the same as the original developed in 1796--is perhaps the most dangerous one we currently have. In this most initial wave of vaccinations, we have already seen several serious injuries and even a few deaths possibly attributable to the vaccine. That is why adequate compensation for vaccine injury is so crucial. Our first responders want to know that if they take the brave step of volunteering for the vaccination and get sick or die, they and their family will be taken care of. The absence of a good compensation program has doubtless contributed to the snail's pace that the president's vaccination program has taken. Only 25,000 of the 500,000 in the ``initial wave'' of healthcare workers have actually been vaccinated. The bill before us will not assure these workers that they will be adequately compensated. The lifetime cap of $262,100 is small change for someone who is permanently disabled. This bill also only covers workers vaccinated during a specific short time period after implementation. What kind of an incentive is this for new healthcare providers to get vaccinated in the future? As the American Nurses Association has written, ``the bill does not provide adequate education, prescreening, surveillance, and compensation.'' Mr. Speaker, I have been working in this Congress to show my strong support for our first responders. Today I will continue to show this support by voting ``no.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Mr. Anthony Meyer for his volunteer service to the Center of Outreach and Services for the Autism Community and congratulate him for his receipt of the NFL Community Quarterback Award. Twice a week for the past five years Mr. Meyers has volunteered at the office of the Center of Outreach and Services for the Autism Community, COSAC, in Central New Jersey. His primary responsibility has been to create, then send autism information packets to the approximately 6,000 individuals who contact the Center annually. Many who call are parents who have just received the devastating news that their child has autism. Through Tony's efforts, parents receive valuable information in a timely manner that shortcuts their delay in seeking necessary services for a son or daughter. An addition, on a regular basis, Tony donates an evening for group work with autistic adults. He provides support for their job crises, he coaches them on searching for employment and he provides a social outlet for people who are sometimes branded as different. He also serves on the Board of Trustees for COSAC where he provides advice on all issues pertaining to autism, particularly on the needs of the adults with whom he has recently worked. What makes this effort particularly remarkable is that Tony Meyer is himself autistic. He did fairly well in school, but never made friends. He held several jobs, but most were minimum wage positions that did not take advantage of his intellect or potential. It was not until Tony decided to turn his efforts toward volunteer work at COSAC that he discovered a place that appreciated his skill, needed his work and valued his perspective. As a result of their appreciation and respect, they nominated Anthony Myers for the prestigious NFL award. I ask that all the Members join me in congratulating Tony as one of the ten recipients of the NY Giants Community Quarterback Award for making a significant volunteer contribution to a non-profit organization.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my serious reservations with the Child Abduction Prevention Act. Although these reservations were not sufficient enough to compel me to vote against it, I want to make it clear that I am not pleased with the tactics employed by the House leadership that brought this bill to the Floor. By introducing the Child Abduction Prevention Act today and passing a rule to prevent the clean Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Network Act from coming to a vote, this House Leadership has imperiled chances for the AMBER Alert to become law in the near-term. In fact, AMBER Alert could have become law this week if the leadership so willed it. The House Leadership, however, has chosen repeatedly to undermine all heartfelt attempts by me and many of my colleagues to make the AMBER Alert national law right now. Today's vote is only another indication of the Leadership's willful intransigence. This bill was supposed to be about protecting our nation's children. It was supposed to be about supporting a National AMBER Alert Network. Sadly, this bill was really about politics. I ran for Congress more than four years ago because I wanted to restore the trust of the American people in our system of self- government. I wanted to break through the cynicism that had poisoned the people's faith in our democracy and in our elected representatives. The cynical tactics employed by the House Leadership today on the AMBER Alert are exactly what I came here to Congress to fight. Last October, this same House Leadership had the opportunity to make the AMBER Alert national law. The Senate had passed an AMBER Alert bill. The House had an opportunity to pass it quickly into law, but the Leadership decided to play politics with the bill and added a list of other provisions. At the time I took a stand against the Leadership and opposed their political games, and I took on the nay-sayers back home who said I should have backed down. The facts are the same today as they were then: these tactics are designed to prevent AMBER Alert from becoming law. As a result, six months have passed and we still don't have AMBER Alert. I wanted to bring a clean AMBER Alert bill to the House floor identical to the one passed twice now by the Senate. I am an original cosponsor of the Frost-Dunn National AMBER Alert bill and I have tried to convince the Leadership to bring it to the Floor for a vote. I voted for this version of the Child Abduction Act today because I support AMBER Alert, but it was not an easy vote. I voted for this bill despite the fact that I know there is a better way to turn AMBER Alert into national Law. I voted for this bill, despite the fact that I have serious reservations about provisions that would impose the death penalty for certain crimes where it does not now apply, increase mandatory sentences for certain offenses, and expand the wiretapping authority of the federal government. In the end, however, I voted for this bill because I am now convinced after months of struggle that neither the principle of my protest nor the strength of my argument will change the collectively obstinate mind of the House Leadership. If even the personal pleas of Elizabeth Smart and her family cannot influence the House Leadership to bring a clean AMBER Alert bill to a vote, then I must conclude that neither can mine. I am now convinced that the only way AMBER will become law is by the overwhelming force of conscience--from the public, from Congress, and from me personally--to communicate in no uncertain terms that AMBER Alert will not be stopped by cynical political games. The only true loser today are America's children who will now have to wait even longer for Congress and the President to strengthen our national AMBER Alert system.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of title IX. Title IX of the educational amendments of 1972 have really been instrumental in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex by mandating gender equality and educational programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Before the passage of title IX, when I and most of our colleagues were in college, many schools saw no problem in maintaining strict limits on admission of women or in simply refusing to admit them, or in denying them access to much of the opportunities within colleges and universities. This has changed dramatically since the passage of Title IX. The effects of the legislation are evident in the success of women in the classroom, on the campus, and in our society at large. In 1972, women received only 9 percent of medical degrees, 7 percent of law degrees, a quarter of doctoral degrees. By 2000, women received 45 percent of medical degrees, 44 percent of law degrees, and 44 percent of doctoral degrees. There is a connection. Thanks to Patsy Mink and others who fought to get Title IX into the legislation, women now have opportunities on the athletic field, throughout the campus, and throughout their lives. By participating in sports, young women realize significant benefits that often correlate to achievement in the classroom and, ultimately, success in college and in the work force. Women who participate in athletics have higher graduation rates and develop important skills like teamwork, leadership, discipline, that stay with them throughout their lives. Attacks on Title IX have taken on really ludicrous dimensions. I have heard some teams, male teams, blame their losing seasons on Title IX. I am sorry, it just does not wash. Title IX is a success. It is a great boon to our society, to our economy, to the education of our people. Unfortunately, the administration is considering proposals that would dramatically weaken the important provisions of Title IX. Female athletes stand to lose scholarships, they stand to lose chances for athletic participation, they stand to lose much of what we have gained since Patsy Mink fought to get Title IX into law. We may not allow, we cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the administration to diminish the opportunities afforded to American women or to undo the progress we have made over the past 30 years. Title IX has enabled millions of young women to pursue goals which their grandmothers and mothers could have only dreamed of. Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will join me as we work to preserve the integrity of this landmark law.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I call on the House to immediately turn to what we know as the Frost-Dunn National AMBER Alert Network Act. This legislation would make $25 million available to State and local entities for highway signage, for education, for training programs. It would make AMBER Alert a national program. AMBER Alert works. It should be a national program. This legislation has 220 cosponsors. We are all influenced by the evidence that this works with more than 52 abducted children recovered through AMBER Alert-like processes, five here in the month of March alone. As my colleague from Texas said, anyone who is watching this debate must wonder what in the world is going on. We have the opportunity to pass a clean bill for AMBER Alert to become law. We had this opportunity last fall. At the time I got in some political trouble in my home State for saying this bill is designed to prevent AMBER Alert from becoming law, and it is not very constructive to say I told you so, but in fact 6 months have passed and when AMBER Alert could have been law on a national scale last fall, it still is not. The reason is, the other side here insists on putting other things into the bill. These might be controversial. At least they are complicated and serious issues that deserve to be aired and debated, such things as expanding the death penalty, increasing mandatory sentences, criminalizing traveling with a criminal intent or a perceived intent, two strikes and you're out for certain kinds of legislation, expanding wiretap authority, eliminating the statute of limitations in some circumstances, eliminating pretrial release in some circumstances. I think any Member of the House, if they would speak objectively, would have to say that some or all of these provisions deserve thorough airing. They are serious matters. They should not just be stuck into another bill, and they certainly should not be put into this bill that is urgent that we pass now. We all celebrated with the Smart family, Edward and Lois Smart, when their daughter Elizabeth was returned to them. Just a few days ago, the Smart family wrote to Members of Congress and said: ``As you know, we can't express enough how our children can't wait another day for the national AMBER Alert to be signed into law. Please, please, please, please, pass the stand-alone AMBER Alert legislation now.'' I could not agree more with the Smart family, Edward, Lois and Elizabeth. We have the opportunity to do it. We can do it today. The President will sign it in a matter of days, I am certain.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the Greek people and their successful struggle for independence from Ottoman occupation that began nearly 182 years ago. Greek Independence Day has special symbolic resonance for Americans. Our forefathers founded our democratic system of government on the principles of popular representation introduced to this world by the ancient Athenians. Our word democracy is, in fact, of Greek derivation and literally translates as people (``demo'') rule (``kratos''). The ancient Greek experiment with democracy, however, was a visionary aberration that was centuries ahead of its time. Democracy did not last long in Ancient Greece as the fist of empires--Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman--silenced democratic yearnings for nearly two millennia. Although democracy temporarily disappeared, the Greeks continued to thrive and prosper. As the Roman Empire expanded in the early centuries after the birth of Christ, the Greek peoples dominated the eastern half of the Roman Empire, known as Byzantium, and it was the Greek city of Constantinople where the Roman emperor Constantine converted himself and the entire Roman Empire to Christianity. After the fall of Rome in 476 AD, the Greek-led Byzantine Empire emerged as a potent force in the world and protectorate of Christian Orthodoxy. The Greeks remained strong and independent until the Central Asian Ottomans crushed the Byzantine armies and conquered the spiritual capital of the Byzantine world at Constantinople in 1453. The victory of the Ottomans cast the Greek speaking peoples into more than four hundred years of occupation. But even while under the yoke of Ottoman rule, the Greeks were an impressive force. As successful and educated merchants, many thrived in the Ottoman middle class and bolstered the Ottoman economy. Still, the Greeks were not meant to be subject peoples and they began to oppose the imperial policies of the Ottoman government. Greeks, many of whom were educated in the universities of the West, began to adopt revolutionary ideas from France, Great Britain, and the United States. The concepts of the nation-state, self-determination, and liberal democracy found their ways into the Greek villages and cities from Athens to Constantinople. On March 25, 1821, Greek patriots from the southern tip of the Peloponnese to the northern outskirts of Macedonia finally rebuked the yoke of the Ottomans and declared the independence of the Greek people from subjugation. At first, the Hellenic fighters met with violent failure, but their just cause ignited the imaginations of their people and of scores of Western philhellenes, such as the English poet Lord Byron, who left their homelands to fight and die with the Greeks for their liberation. The United States was never far from the minds of the revolutionary Greeks, nor was the struggle of the Greeks unnoticed by Americans. As Greek revolutionary commander Petros Mavromichalis, one of the founders of the modern Greek state, said to the citizens of the United States in 1821, ``It is in your land that liberty has fixed her abode and . . . in imitating you, we shall imitate our ancestors and be thought worthy of them if we succeed in resembling you.'' By 1833, the Greeks had secured independence and with it a place in history as the first of the subjugated peoples in Europe to overthrow their Ottoman masters. As the Greek nation developed and grew, it emerged as a stalwart ally of the United States. The Greek people fought alongside the American and Allied forces in both of the world wars of the twentieth century. The Greeks again took up arms against their Ottoman foes in the First World War and then handed the Axis powers their first defeat in World War II when the Greek army pushed back the forces of Mussolini. Soon after, however, they would suffer through a long and painful Nazi occupation. After World War II, Greece became an instrumental member of the NATO alliance. Greece's strategic location made it a vital buffer between the Western Democratic world and Soviet Communism. Over the last thirty years, Greece has made major strides forward for its people. In 1974, Konstantine Karamanlis finally restored democracy to Greece, bringing representative government back to its birthplace. Greece became a member of the European Community and the powerful European Union. Today, Greece continues to move in the right direction thanks to the enlightened leadership of Prime Minister Costas Simitas. Greece currently has the honor of holding the European Union's rotating Presidency. It is working to promote peace and stability in Europe and the Middle East during challenging times. Greece and its Foreign Minister George Papandreou continue aggressive efforts to end generations of strained relations between Turkey and Greece, including actively promoting a settlement on Cyprus and helping to promote Turkey's bid for EU membership. Greece understands that a democratic Turkey belonging to the EU would serve the interests of Greece, Turkey, and all of Europe. Economically, Greece is prospering and recently became a member of the European Monetary Union. Next year, the Olympics will finally return to their birthplace in Greece where athletes and spectators from around the world will experience the warmth of Greek hospitality. Strategically, Greece remains important, especially to the United States. It is a force of stability in the volatile Balkans where it continues to promote open markets and democracy. The Greek government is also united with the United States in its war on terrorism. Over the last year Greek law enforcement and intelligence services have worked closely with U.S. authorities to shut down the November 17th terrorist group and its terrorist allies in Greece. Greece has made major arrests and has begun prosecuting terrorist leaders for their crimes. I cannot overstate the importance of strong ties between Greece and the United States. As an American citizen who believes firmly in the principles of democracy and as a representative of thousands of Greek- Americans that live in Central New Jersey, I rise today in humble recognition of Greek Independence Day.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to vote to support our brave armed forces. I will vote for this resolution. My thoughts and prayers are with the men and women in uniform who are serving our country in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. They will, without doubt, perform admirably. While I am disappointed that this resolution contains dubious and politically opportunistic language regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism, that cannot stop me from endorsing the valor and dedication of our troops. Although I remain concerned that this war will make our country less instead of more safe, I deeply respect the personal sacrifice and commitment of our armed forces. Our democracy permits and even encourages disagreement, but it cannot tolerate disrespect towards our men and women in uniform.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk further about the budget. Much has been said, and I will not go over it, that this budget, as we now have our thoughts and prayers with our troops overseas, does not even include any mention of the war, of the cost of the war. It does not include funding for first responders adequately. It does not adequately fund education and special education. It would force cuts to VA benefits. But let me just address two matters that I think really should be underscored that are failings in this budget. One has to do with Medicare. I have heard Members on both sides of the aisle speak passionately about the need for prescription medicine coverage, yet the majority's budget resolution contains only $28 billion in new spending, when the lowest estimates for this kind of funding are about $400 billion. In other words, if this is going to happen, it would pull money not out of thin air, but it would pull money out of Medicare, other Medicare programs and out of Medicaid spending. That will not work. In the area of research and development, our investment in science, research and development is a necessary investment to provide the growth in productivity that is required, that is really postulated for this budget resolution. That growth will not come unless we invest in research and development. NIH funding, which was previously on a doubling path, the majority seems to think little of the achievements of the NIH researchers in hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, Alzheimer's and all of these other areas. Their budget reduces appropriated health programs by almost 5 percent in 2004. With the looming war in Iraq, with the continued instability in the Middle East, with the threat of global climate change, you would think we would be increasing our funding for research in carbon reduction in fuels, but the funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science remains flat. So, these are major shortcomings in the budget. I see my friend from New York on his feet, and I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman. (Mr. ISRAEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to question the merits of the mission this Administration will soon ask the brave men and women of our armed forces to undertake. I am sure that our servicemen and women will perform admirably and we all hope they will achieve their objectives quickly and with minimal loss of life, but my reservations about this approaching war remain as strong today as they have ever been. Although I agree with the President that we must eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, I still believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest, to launch a military attack against Iraq now. I firmly believe that we could better achieve our objectives in Iraq by building a strong international coalition capable of not only winning the war, but also capable of winning the peace. When thinking about whether or not we should go to war against Iraq, I find myself returning repeatedly to one basic question. Will American-led military action against Iraq improve the security of the American people against the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? I believe the answer is no. I remain concerned that an immediate attack on Iraq would significantly rise the chance of terrorism here at home, while overseas I fear that a cornered Saddam Hussein would release his arsenal of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. He could also pass them on to terrorists and speed their arrival to American shores. But it is not fear of danger to America that gives us pause. Americans are brave enough to face danger if necessary. However, there is no evidence I have seen either in classified or public briefings that convinces me that this war is necessary now. Furthermore, even if we prosecute a successful war, which I have no doubt our brave men and women in uniform would, I have questions about our ability to win the post-war peace. A war and subsequent American occupation of Iraq would likely send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americansim, giving rise to future threats to our national security. While I have no doubt that we would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that the act of extinguishing Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, the terrorist threat to the United States. The ensuring anti-American sentiment could reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, I might add, one that America has largely neglected. We can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but this Administration has not made a convincing case to the world that war is necessary. Instead, it has used aggressive rhetoric to wage a diplomatic war on our allies that is straining our international relationships and alienating America from the world. While I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run. In order to be successful, we must lead the world community. But leadership is not simply about acting boldly--it means bringing along others to act boldly with you. We need to disarm and dismantle Saddam's arsenal, but we should do so with the support of the world. This Administration, however, has failed to earn the support of our allies. And so, in place of leadership, we have questions and ultimately instability. This Administration has yet to explain how military action make Americans more safe, not less. It has also failed to explain to the American public what our responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam Iraq. How will we guarantee the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people? How will we guarantee the success of a democratic transition? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq? If the President has determined that military action against Iraq is necessary, I request that he explain first to a joint session of Congress exactly how a war could affect our other international interests, what our plan is for achieving a long-term stabilization of post-conflict Iraq, and approximately how much military action and post-war reconstruction would likely cost. The American people deserve to know the answers to these questions. Americans are willing to pay any price and bear any burden to advance the American ideals of liberty, equality and peace. However, if a war is not deemed necessary, if it is not indeed a last resort, then the price in dollars and blood is too great. Since it now appears that arguments against the war are too late, we must turn our attention to working with other countries diplomatically and to prosecuting the war as humanely as possible so that we will be able to pick up the pieces when the fighting is over.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I don't know all of the reasons why this bill was pulled from the suspension calendar today. But I hope it will be re-scheduled for our consideration soon. I support passage of this bill sponsored by my New Jersey colleague, Congressman Mike Ferguson. It will re-authorize the important work of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD) within the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Statutory authorization for this particular national center expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2002. But at the same time, I also want to underscore my concern that officials of the CDC and the National Center on Birth Defects do not currently intend to continue approximately $1 million in annual funding beyond Fiscal Year 2003 for the New Jersey Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, which is located in the City of Trenton. This would be very short-sighted and inefficient. The New Jersey Center is one of eight such state centers that CDC established in 1997, at the direction of Congress. Since then, they have been hard at work developing a statewide registry and database on the incidence of birth defects and linking them to new research. Continuing this important work will help us determine what factors might be causing birth defects. It could yield invaluable insights into whether exposure to certain environmental hazards, for example, contributes to birth defects. Sadly, our nation is now confronting huge budget deficits for years to come. But the CDC and the National Center on Birth Defects should build upon their initial five-year investment and continue their modest funding for all of the state efforts already compiling this vital information to help determine what causes birth defects. Doing all we can to prevent birth defects and to learn more about what contributes to them is not a partisan issue. Accordingly, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to sustain federal support for New Jersey and other states that have taken the lead in developing this tracking data, while also enabling more states to do so.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. This law has fostered countless initiatives that have brought millions of dollars to shelters, increased resources for law enforcement, expanded the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and bolstered the prosecution of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases. These programs and services are invaluable. U.S. Department of Justice statistics indicate that domestic violence has decreased by 49% since VAWA went into effect. They also reaffirm that full funding for VAWA is well worth the investment. It is estimated that the $1.6 billion spent on VAWA programs during the first six years after its enactment saved government coffers $14.8 billion in medical, legal, workplace and other social costs, not to mention saving many lives. Unfortunately, state budget crises and decreases in federal funding are threatening these vital programs and services. President Bush's budget request for FY 2004 would cut funding for VAWA programs and services by $141.6 million in FY 2004 from the previously authorized level of $692.5 million. Our nation must renew our commitment to ending all forms of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to appropriate full funding to fulfill the mission of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1200 students from across the country will compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program in Washington, D.C. This program is the most extensive educational program in the country, developed specifically to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The We the People program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent the state of New Jersey in the program's finals. These students have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. In the past fifteen years, these young scholars have won the state competition fourteen times, an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed. Through their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. It is a great honor that students from the 12th District in New Jersey have shown such dedication and interest in our nation's government. The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of challenging questions by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' appreciation of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary to become active, responsible citizens. The class from East Brunswick High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand the values and principles fundamental to our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals and continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the country will compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program in Washington, DC. This program is the most extensive educational program in the country, developed specifically to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The We the People program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent the state of New Jersey in the program's finals. These students have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. In the past fifteen years, these young scholars have won the state competition fourteen times, an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed. Through their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. It is a great honor that students from the 12th District in New Jersey have shown such dedication and interest in our nation's government. The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of challenging questions by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' appreciation of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary to become active, responsible citizens. The class from East Brunswick High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, DC. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand the values and principles fundamental to our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals and continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of full funding of the Violence Against Women Act. This law fostered countless initiatives that have brought millions of dollars to shelters, increased resources for law enforcement, expanded the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and bolstered the prosecution of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases. These programs and services are invaluable. U.S. Department of Justice statistics indicate that domestic violence has decreased by 49 percent since VAWA went into effect. They also reaffirm that full funding for VAWA is well worth the investment. It is estimated that the $1.6 billion spent on VAWA programs during the first six years after its enactment saved government coffers $14.8 billion in medical, legal, workplace and other social costs, not to mention saving many lives. Unfortunately, state budget crises and decreases in federal funding are threatening these vital programs and services. President Bush's budget request for FY 2004 would cut funding for VAWA programs and services by $141.6 million in FY 2004 from the previously authorized level of $692.5 million. Our Nation must renew our commitment to ending all forms of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to appropriate fall funding to fulfill the mission of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as an educator and avid reader, it's always a special pleasure to visit a library or a museum. Libraries safeguard our freedom and keep democracy healthy. Museums and libraries preserve the past and offer brighter futures to all of us. They are true community assets. That is why I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act. Libraries are often referred to as the ``People's University.'' It is a fitting name. Libraries provide all of us with free access to a fabulous wealth of information. In this increasingly technology-driven society, they speak directly to what we call the Digital Divide. A recent survey by the Department of Commerce found that our libraries are the No. 1 point of access for those who do not have Internet access at home or at work. Today, 90 percent of public libraries have some kind of Internet connection. Research also shows us that Americans visit libraries 3.5 billion times each year; 1.6 billion items are borrowed annually from public libraries; and research librarians answer 7 million questions every week. Clearly libraries are responding not only to the daunting challenges of the Information Age and to the changing needs of our communities, but they are continuing to serve all of their traditional roles as well. Libraries are also true community centers. They create environments where students can do their homework, townspeople can gather, families can interact, seniors can learn new skills, and job seekers can find advice. They are forums building partnerships, linking with everyone from garden clubs to Head Start programs to extend their reach throughout our communities. Throughout our country, libraries serve as, the catalyst for economic revitalization, bringing together our communities civic and social leaders. They provide reading material for people of all ages by sending books into maternity wards, setting up reading stations in pediatrician's offices, developing teen centers, and establishing mobile book carts in nursing homes and senior centers. I am currently observing the improvements at my own Princeton public library that are traceable to this authorization bill. The library is in the process of constructing a state of the art library security, inventory, and circulation system that will allow library users to automatically check in and check out books. Let me cite some other examples of how our local libraries are helping people all across the 12th District of New Jersey. The South Brunswick Public Library has been fortunate to receive funding from the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants. Their Computer Training Center, established in part by these funds serves hundreds of people each week. The center not only provides free Internet access, but it provides the training many people need to use the Internet on their own. Robert Weidlich of Kendall Park, NJ, turned to the library when he began suffering chronic back pain brought about by hunching over a microscope all day, conducting medical research in a nearby company. He wanted to find the internal source of his pain, which his doctors had not been able to do. At the library, staff helped Weidlich use the library's collections and electronic sources to tap into the medical sources and the latest research from all over the world. He became a regular at the computer center, spending many hours logged on the Internet to learn about disorders of the spinal cord and back. As a result of his research, he located the unusual source of his pain--a damaged ligament in the lumbar region of his back. With his new understanding of the problem, he was able to invent ways to mechanically support his back so that he could go on with his life. Peter Gao of Monmouth Junction, gleefully reported that he was able to find a new job at the post office because of the assistance the library provided in his job search when he recently lost his programming position at Dow Jones. Greta Ji passed the Yale law school tests with a top score, thanks to the materials and computer access that she obtained through the library. Dan Guerra, a family lawyer, regularly uses the library in his research, and especially finds the databases helpful. Finally, the Investments Club utilizes all our resources to keep abreast of the latest market developments. None of the Club members have computers at home, nor could they individually afford the financial databases they like to check at their weekly meetings. Senior citizens like Leona Bouthwell, can now regularly check her investments and look up consumer information. These are examples of how important libraries are to me and millions of other Americans. Mr. Speaker, Carl Rowan, a noted journalist, once said, ``The library is the temple of learning, and learning has liberated more people than all the wars in history.'' I look forward to the passage of H.R. 13 the Museum and Library Services Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, to provide for the common defense of our Nation is a constitutional duty here in Congress, and we have no responsibility more serious than to look after the security of the people of America, and to do it in a way that honors and protects the men and women who defend our security. We certainly recognize their courage, their sacrifice and their patriotism. I am concerned that the American-led war upon which we are about to launch, followed by an American military occupation, would make Americans here at home less secure, not more. With that in mind, I would like to refer to a resolution introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and cosponsored by a number of others of us. The joint resolution has a number of whereas clauses, including that whereas Saddam Hussein is a repressive dictator who has demonstrated through his own actions, including the invasion of Kuwait and the oppression of the Iraqi people, that it is necessary for the international community to ensure his conduct is in accordance with international law. And whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'', posed by Iraq and to, ``work for the necessary resolutions'' while also making clear that, ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced and that the just demands of peace and security will be met or action will be unavoidable;'' . . . And whereas Congress recognizes the efforts of the President to obtain unanimous approval for United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 which affords Iraq, ``a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council.'' And following various other whereas clauses, we call upon the President to report to Congress prior to using U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq pursuant to section 3(a) of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, to report on the following: 1. A determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq. In other words, that war is, indeed, a last resort. 2. A full accounting of the implications, both positive and negative, of initiating military action against Iraq in regard to homeland security, the war on terrorism, regional stability in the Middle East, the Middle East peace process, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In other words, to understand the implications that an invasion of Iraq would have for our other international interests, including the combat against terrorism and the regional stability in the Middle East. 3. The steps the United States and its allies will take to ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction and the related knowledge base will be safeguarded from dispersal to other rogue states and international terrorist organizations. In other words, to see that the risk of use of weapons of mass destruction would actually be reduced, not increased, by an invasion of Iraq. As an aside, I might comment, the serious problem that is created by our lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in that area. 4. The United States' plan for achieving long-term social, economic and political stabilization of a post-conflict Iraq, including a plan to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and to ensure respect of their human rights as well as bringing to justice the individuals responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed in Iraq. 5. The nature and extent of the international support for military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. In other words, it is not just a matter of ``you're either with us or against us'' but how does this help us work together to accomplish our goals around the world now and in the future. 6. The steps the United States and its allies will take to protect United States soldiers, allied forces and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental hazards, associated with battlefield agents. 7. An estimate of the full costs including humanitarian aid in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq, and securing political stability in the region, and 8. The anticipated short and long-term effects of military action on the economy and the Federal budget. We end by saying it is the sense of Congress that the report required by subsection (a) should be delivered by the President in the form of a public address to a joint session of Congress. I think with this kind of report, that is satisfactory on all these points, our men and women in uniform will have everything they need to defend the security of the American people. Without such a report I must conclude that it is at least premature, or more likely contrary to our national interest, the fight against terrorism, to our ability to lead the world, to launch a military attack against Iraq now.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, as a scientist, I must say extreme conviction seems to be crowding out understanding here today. I would like to cut through the scientific rhetoric of this biomedical research technique and discuss the real progress in this area. But in the limited time available, let me draw the choice as sharply as possible. Down one road we see potential therapeutic cloning to help cure diseases from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's; down the other road we see unprecedented criminalization of scientific research. Now, therapeutic cloning is not some far-out technique conducted on the fringe of the scientific community. These researchers are not crazed Dr. Frankensteins. They are people like our neighbors, highly ethical who are working hard to save lives, to relieve suffering, to improve the quality of life. Let us not make them criminals. Now, to draw the distinction here, particularly referring to my colleague's reference to a slippery slope, in vitro fertilization has been hailed as a miracle of modern science allowing millions of American couples to conceive. However, by necessity of the in vitro fertilization procedure, some human embryos are created that will not be given the chance to develop into babies. Are we to say here today that we want to outlaw in vitro fertilization? IVF is not only accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced. It is a God send for millions of families. Yes, millions of families. Therapeutic cloning is no more ethically objectionable than IVF. Now, I asked the proponents of this bill, do you question the ethics of the parents of those million Americans alive today through the miracle of IVF? They may, but let us not command their beliefs to become law. The majority of my constituents, the majority of Americans, all scientific researchers I know, agree that human reproductive cloning would be unsafe, unethical, and should not be allowed. The Greenwood substitute is every bit as effective as H.R. 534 in keeping scientists from creating genetic duplicates of people. Regardless of which bill is passed today, millions of human embryos will be created.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in support of the Cardin substitute and in outrage for the circumvention of the committee process. Mr. Chairman, last year in the Education and the Workforce Committee, we sat down and discussed TANF reauthorization extensively. We had several days' worth of hearings at both the committee and subcommittee level before a two-day markup in full committee. Two other committees-- Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce--worked on the bill at the same time. Then the leadership of the majority party brought the bill to the floor, they only allowed two hours of debate and no amendments were permitted. This was an egregious example of the political partisanship and poor procedure that has dominated the House in recent years. But this year, the situation is even worse; no committees looked at the bill. The entire committee process was ignored, and again we have is no opportunity for real debate or amendment on the floor. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if some of my colleagues have noticed, but since we last looked at TANF reauthorization, we've had an election. Aren't the new members of this body entitled to hear more this bill? Aren't they entitled to their say in committee? We've also seen our economic situation get worse last year. Unemployment has gone up. Wouldn't it be a good idea for the committees to discuss the effects of these factors? Is it wise to ignore any potential new research that may have been conducted? I'm not going to speculate as to why the leadership found it necessary to circumvent the committee process. But this is a dangerous precedent to set, and we should do more than give a cursory examination when we reauthorize the program providing assistance to the neediest of our families. Not only should we have looked at this bill in committees, but we should also be focusing more on trying to find the facts behind temporary assistance in this country. Welfare reform is still an experiment in progress. We still do not know what happens to people who leave the welfare rolls. Are they working? Are the unemployed? Are they simply off the rolls? What factors contribute to the ability of people to comply with TANF work requirements? No one knows for sure. That's why as we go through this reauthorization process, it is vitally important that we improve the research and data reporting in TANF. In order to make informed decisions on the directions that TANF and CCDBG should take we need more information on the issue. I believe that while maintaining pressure on the states to move people from welfare to work, the renewed TANF should also help families move up the job and income ladders. We should eliminate the caseload reduction credit and phase in an employment credit. For each 1% of the caseload that obtains employment, the work participation rate would be reduced by 1%. In addition, there would be extra credit for recipients who obtain higher paying jobs. Another way of assisting families in moving up the income ladder is giving people the tools to get a good job with the potential for advancement, not a dead-end make-work job. We need to provide the training for individuals trying to get jobs. This is how we can ensure that families will not return to the welfare rolls. We must also give parents what they need to achieve the work requirements. First and foremost, this means providing funding for quality childcare. A parent will not make a reliable employee if he or she is always concerns about the quality of their child's care, or cannot get childcare at all. If welfare recipients are going to get real jobs that uplift their self-sufficiency and if children are going to have the care and attention they need to grow positively, we must need good childcare programs. Mr. Chairman, all these issues could have been brought up in committee. All of them could have been considered during markup or addressed by witnesses during hearings. But we never got the chance. And while I laud the goal of providing TANF recipients with the resources to move from welfare to work. I cannot support this bill and I cannot condone the circumvention of the legislative process.