Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for final passage of the FY 03 Omnibus Bill, but I will hold my nose as I do so. Let me first note one positive aspect of the omnibus--the increase in Medicare provider payments. I'm very pleased that the conferees approved a 1.6 percent increase this year, to prevent the drastic payment cuts that threatened seniors' access to healthcare. But all is not well, unfortunately. I believe, as do so many of my colleagues, that these are unusual and dangerous times that require urgent action. We cannot continue to leave this government limping along with frozen budgets, trying to meet the challenges of a new world. So I find myself compelled to vote for this bill, to protect my constituents and the people of the United States. Our federal agencies need to have appropriate funding to deal with the threats and challenges of the world as we see it today. Mr. Speaker, the House leadership did not think it necessary to give our local first responders the funding they need to deal with emergencies. We've heard so much rhetoric about the need for this country to be prepared for the dangers around us. So why have we shortchanged the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who are so crucial to these preparedness efforts? I voted for the motion to recommit because it added $500 million above the conference- approved levels for training, equipment, and assistance for first responders. What I also cannot condone is the senseless assault on our environment contained in this bill, including language that removes oversight of public land management in areas like the Tongass National Forest. I also cannot condone a decrease in funding for conservation programs, which are so crucial as we consider how to end our dependence on foreign oil. These are only two of the things I can find wrong in this bill, because we had less than one day to work on it. Who knows what else have been slipped in? I will vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I do so with great reservation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I concur with the remarks of my colleague from New Jersey who just spoke. I rise in support of H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act; and I would like to salute Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for introducing what my colleagues will tell you, and my constituents especially will tell you, is important legislation. I cannot count the number of e-mails, phone calls, and letters I receive from constituents, many of them irate, complaining about telemarketing. The residents of my district have pleaded with me to do something so that they can have a peaceful family dinner, not interrupted by credit card solicitations or the latest condominium offerings on some tropical locale. I know what they are talking about, because frequently my dinner is interrupted by these calls, too. They have been described as nuisances, extremely annoying, and by stronger language. We should not stop companies from developing and using innovative ways to sell their products and services, but there is little question that this kind of telemarketing is out of hand. It has become a form of harassment. Just as citizens have the right to tell door-to-door solicitors to leave their property, Americans should have the right to tell telemarketers to stop calling and to make it happen. The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act will be widely appreciated. It does not prohibit telemarketing. It does not stop companies from using phone solicitation to sell legitimate products and services. It empowers individuals by creating a realistic and enforceable way for them to get their names off telemarketing lists. We have had do-not-call lists on the books, legislation, for more than a decade. But when Congress first mandated such lists, the FCC chose to leave creation and maintenance up to individual businesses, making enforcement next to impossible. That is why the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act is a great step forward in creating a real nationwide do-not-call list. Finally, Madam Speaker, people will be able to opt out of telemarketing by registering online or making a simple phone call. Telemarketers will face serious consequences for noncompliance. I think a fine of $11,000, up to that amount, for each call will get their attention. It is about time that the Federal Government protect the citizens from this unwanted harassment. After we are successful in implementing this, I hope we will turn our attention to electronic mail spam.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the seven astronauts who tragically lost their lives in the space shuttle Columbia disaster on Saturday. The crew of the Columbia, Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Blair Salton Clark, and Ilan Ramon lost their lives while on a mission for all of mankind. By exploring, learning, and pushing the boundaries of human understanding, they were providing a service to us all. These men and women were more than astronauts; they were heroes. Astronauts are the modern expression of our pioneer spirit. Just as Lewis and Clark risked their lives two hundred years ago to explore the uncharted lands of the American West, our astronauts are twenty-first century pioneers who put their lives in danger to explore the vast expanse that lies beyond earth's frontier--space. The journey into space, however, is not exclusively an American effort. As we have learned by the outpouring of sympathy from around the globe, space exploration is an effort that knows no national borders. Columbia's international crew was also a testament to this fact and today our hearts and prayers are with our close friends and allies in India and Israel, as they mourn the loss of astronauts Kalpana Chawla and Ilan Roman. Columbia's crew carried with them the dreams and hopes for our future; dreams that the research they conducted on protein crystals could someday help develop new lifesaving drugs; dreams that a combustion experiment could help reduce pollutants in earth's atmosphere; and dreams that work done on prostate cancer tissue might someday lead to a cure. We must not let these dreams die with them. We must continue to push the boundaries of scientific exploration both in space and here on the earth. In the aftermath of this tragedy many have tried to quantify the benefits of the manned space program. But most are not quantifiable. How do you measure the sense of earth's fragility and unity inspired by those early pictures of earth from outer space? How do you measure the significance in human history of stepping on the moon? How do you measure the inspiration that man's expeditious into space have given to generations of school children around the world? As we try to understand what caused the Columbia tragedy and as we agonize over what we might have done to prevent it, we must not lose sight of the larger meaning of the space program. Our endeavor into space has always represented the power of the American belief in the possible, in the potential of humanity to achieve what seems unachievable. The loss of the Columbia should not put our faith in our potential into question because no endeavor worth undertaking is without risk or sacrifice.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Harry Woske, MD, of Hunterdon County NJ. Dr. Woske is one of the county's leading physicians and has been serving our community for more than four decades. Along with his commitment to his patients he has been a teacher and mentor to his fellow doctors. He has received numerous honors recognizing his work, including the Hunterdon Medical Center's ``Teacher of the Year'' award in 1978 and New Jersey Magazine's ``Top Doc'' award in 1998. Dr. Woske served as the Chief of Internal Medicine at Hunterdon Medical Center from 1960 to 1969 and the Chief of Medical Services at Raritan Valley Hospital from 1973 to 1976. Dr. Woske returned to Hunterdon Medical Center, where he has been the Chief of Cardiology since 1977. He is a member of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services' Cardiovascular Health Advisory Panel. Throughout his career, he has been a member of more than twenty professional and scientific societies, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the New Jersey State Society of Medicine. As an inspiration to physicians throughout the county of Hunterdon and the state of New Jersey, and as an active member of the Rotary Club, Dr. Woske has contributed significantly to the life of his community. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of John L. McGoldrick, the Executive Vice President of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Director of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, for his years of service to his community, the people of New Jersey, and millions of people around the world who are leading healthier lives due to his company's medicines. Millions of HIV infected Africans, especially, have benefited from his service. Mr. McGoldrick is a successful corporate lawyer who is as committed to good corporate citizenship as he is to the needs of the boardroom. His many accomplishments both at home in the United States and abroad reflect his firm commitment to alleviate the suffering of the less fortunate and to promote effective governance. Since arriving at Bristol-Myers Squibb, for example, he has been responsible for leading the company's HIV/AIDS initiatives in Africa, including its groundbreaking $115 million Secure the Future program in Southern and Francophone Africa, as well as the ACCESS program to make antiretroviral therapy accessible in the developing world. An active global citizen, he is also a Member of the Aspen Institute on the World Economy, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the World Economic Forum. In his home state of New Jersey, Mr. McGoldrick has served the public as a Director of the New Jersey Transit Corporation, the United States' third largest passenger rail and bus company. He has also served on governmental reform commissions in New Jersey and has been called to represent personally governors of New Jersey from both political parties. Mr. McGoldrick has also made many contributions to the Jewish community in Jew Jersey. He led Bristol-Myers Squibb's efforts in support of the State of New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education. For his many contributions to the Jewish community, he was also recently honored at a dinner hosted by the American Jewish Committee's Institute of Human Relations. I rise today in recognition of John L. McGoldrick, a citizen of the highest order and an honor to both his country and to the State of New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Women's Heart Week, February 1 through 7. We have heard for years about the devastating impact that heart disease has on men's health. It is a lesser-known fact, however, that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women 35 and older, and while the mortality rate for men with cardiovascular disease has dropped, the rate for women is rising. In fact, in every year since 1984, heart disease has killed more women than men. Unfortunately, far too many people are unaware of these grim statistics. So much focus has been placed on heart disease in men, it has received little attention in women. Too little emphasis has been placed on conducting research into cardiovascular disease specifically in women--despite the fact that there are physiological differences between men's and women's hearts. Many of the diagnostic tools used to detect cardiovascular disease were developed for men and are thus less effective in women. For example, one study showed that treadmill stress tests, used so frequently to diagnose heart disease, product up to 35 percent misleading results in women. Furthermore, women get poorer treatment for cardiovascular problems--they are twice as likely to die after a heart attack, twice as likely to have a second heart attack within two weeks of the first, and more than twice as likely to die after coronary bypass surgery. It is important not only that medical researchers focus more on gender disparities in heart health and treatment delivery, but also that more women become aware of the preventative steps they can take to prevent heart disease. Smoking cessation is crucial--27 percent of American women smoke, and smoking is the most controllable risk for heart disease. Equally disconcerting, 70 percent of American women do not exercise regularly, another major risk factor for cardiovascular illnesses. That is why I am so proud to see that the Women's Heart Foundation is bringing attention to these issues with Women's Heart Week. On February 1, WHF, along with Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, NJ, will offer a free public program including blood pressure and cholesterol screenings, cooking demonstrations, and discussion panels. Throughout the rest of the week, further events will teach heart-healthy shopping and medication safety. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that all of my colleagues here in the House encourage their constituents to participate in Women's Heart Week. Together, we can help raise awareness of the silent killer that continues to take so many of our wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the powerful and eloquent lecture former President Carter delivered upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last December. With the establishment of the Carter Center in 1982, President Carter embraced one of the humanity's loftiest and most widely shared goals-- the alleviation of human suffering. The Carter Center has worked to virtually eliminate the crippling Guinea worm disease in Africa and treat millions of others who suffer from river blindness and trachoma. The Center's efforts to promote peace and democracy throughout the world are also well-known, monitoring elections in emerging democracies such as Sierra Leone and East Timor while promoting peaceful conflict resolution in places like the Sudan. There is certainly little doubt that Jimmy Carter has earned the title of elder statesman and has become a voice of authority on foreign policy issues. His Nobel lecture was an affirmation of the principles that have guided his efforts for so many years. He articulated his vision of a world sharing the goals of ``peace, freedom, human rights, environmental quality, the alleviation of suffering, and the rule of law.'' But he also sounded a stern warning, a reminder that we live in a dangerous time that requires international cooperation and resolve, rather than preemptive unilateral action. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of President Carter's Nobel lecture, delivered December 10, 2002, be placed in the Record. Nobel Lecture (By Jimmy Carter) Your Majesties, Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is with a deep sense of gratitude that I accept this prize. I am grateful to my wife Rosalynn, to my colleagues at The Carter Center, and to many others who continue to seek an end to violence and suffering throughout the world. The scope and character of our Center's activities are perhaps unique, but in many other ways they are typical of the work being done by many hundreds of nongovernmental organizations that strive for human rights and peace. Most Nobel laureates have carried out our work in safety, but there are others who have acted with great personal courage. None has provided more vivid reminders of the dangers of peacemaking than two of my friends, Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin, who gave their lives for the cause of peace in the Middle East. Like these two heroes, my first chosen career was in the military, as a submarine officer. My shipmates and I realized that we had to be ready to fight if combat was forced upon us, and we were prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles. At the same time, we always prayed fervently that our readiness would ensure that there would be no war. Later, as President and as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, I was one of those who bore the sobering responsibility of maintaining global stability during the height of the Cold War, as the world's two superpowers confronted each other. Both sides understood that an unresolved political altercation or a serious misjudgment could lead to a nuclear holocaust. In Washington and in Moscow, we knew that we would have less than a half hour to respond after we learned that intercontinental missiles had been launched against us. There had to be a constant and delicate balancing of our great military strength with aggressive diplomacy, always seeking to build friendships with other nations, large and small, that shared a common cause. In those days, the nuclear and conventional armaments of the United States and the Soviet Union were almost equal, but democracy ultimately prevailed because of commitments to freedom and human rights, not only by people in my country and those of our allies, but in the former Soviet empire as well. As president, I extended my public support and encouragement to Andrei Sakharov, who, although denied the right to attend the ceremony, was honored here for his personal commitments to these same ideals. The world has changed greatly since I left the White House. Now there is only one superpower, with unprecedented military and economic strength. The coming budget for American armaments will be greater than those of the next fifteen nations combined, and there are troops from the United States in many countries throughout the world. Our gross national economy exceeds that of the three countries that follow us, and our nation's voice most often prevails as decisions are made concerning trade, humanitarian assistance, and the allocation of global wealth. This dominant status is unlikely to change in our lifetimes. Great American power and responsibility are not unprecedented, and have been used with restraint and great benefit in the past. We have not assumed that super strength guarantees super wisdom, and we have consistently reached out to the international community to ensure that our own power and influence are tempered by the best common judgment. Within our country, ultimate decisions are made through democratic means, which tend to moderate radical or ill- advised proposals. Constrained and inspired by historic constitutional principles, our nation has endeavored for more than two hundred years to follow the now almost universal ideals of freedom, human rights, and justice for all. Our president, Woodrow Wilson, was honored here for promoting the League of Nations, whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: ``collective security'' and ``self-determination.'' Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After the second world war, American Secretary of State Cordell Hull received this prize for his role in founding the United Nations. His successor, General George C. Marshall, was recognized because of his efforts to help rebuild Europe, without excluding the vanquished nations of Italy and Germany. This was a historic example of respecting human rights at the international level. Ladies and gentlemen: Twelve years ago, President Mikhail Gorbachev received your recognition for his preeminent role in ending the Cold War that had lasted fifty years. But instead of entering a millennium of peace, the world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place. The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect. There is a plethora of civil wars, unrestrained by rules of the Geneva Convention, within which an overwhelming portion of the casualties are unarmed civilians who have no ability to defend themselves. And recent appalling acts of terrorism have reminded us that no nations, even superpowers, are invulnerable. It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations, which Ralph Bunche described here in this same forum as exhibiting a ``fortunate flexibility''--not merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change, without violence. He went on to say: ``To suggest that war can prevent war is a base play on words and a despicable form of warmongering. The objective of any who sincerely believe in peace clearly must be to exhaust every honorable recourse in the effort to save the peace. The world has had ample evidence that war begets only conditions that beget further war.'' We must remember that today there are at least eight nuclear powers on earth, and three of them are threatening to their neighbors in areas of great international tension. For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences. If we accept the premise that the United Nations is the best avenue for the maintenance of peace, then the carefully considered decisions of the United Nations Security Council must be enforced. All too often, the alternative has proven to be uncontrollable violence and expanding spheres of hostility. For more than half a century, following the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, the Middle East conflict has been a source of worldwide tension. At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis, Egyptians, and Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription for peace: United Nations Resolution 242. It condemns the acquisition of territory by force, calls for withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, and provides for Israelis to live securely and in harmony with their neighbors. There is no other mandate whose implementation could more profoundly improve international relationships. Perhaps of more immediate concern is the necessity for Iraq to comply fully with the unanimous decision of the Security Council that it eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and permit unimpeded access by inspectors to confirm that this commitment has been honored. The world insists that this be done. I thought often during my years in the White House of an admonition that we received in our small school in Plains, Georgia, from a beloved teacher, Miss Julia Coleman. She often said: ``We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles.'' When I was a young boy, this same teacher also introduced me to Leo Tolstoy's novel, ``War and Peace.'' She interpreted that powerful narrative as a reminder that the simple human attributes of goodness and truth can overcome great power. She also taught us that an individual is not swept along on a tide of inevitability but can influence even the greatest human events. These premises have been proven by the lives of many heroes, some of whose names were little known outside their own regions until they became Nobel laureates: Albert John Lutuli, Norman Borlaug, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jody Williams, and even Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa. All of these and others have proven that even without government power--and often in opposition to it--individuals can enhance human rights and wage peace, actively and effectively. The Nobel prize also profoundly magnified the inspiring global influence of Martin Luther King, Jr., the greatest leader that my native state has ever produced. On a personal note, it is unlikely that my political career beyond Georgia would have been possible without the changes brought about by the civil rights movement in the American south and throughout our nation. On the steps of our memorial to Abraham Lincoln, Dr. King said: ``I have a dream that on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.'' The scourge of racism has not been vanquished, either in the red hills of our state or around the world. And yet we see ever more frequent manifestations of his dream of racial healing. In a symbolic but very genuine way, at least involving two Georgians, it is coming true in Oslo today. I am not here as a public official, but as a citizen of a troubled world who finds hope in a growing consensus that the generally accepted goals of society are peace, freedom, human rights, environmental quality, the alleviation of suffering, and the rule of law. During the past decades, the international community, usually under the auspices of the United Nations, has struggled to negotiate global standards that can help us achieve these essential goals. They include: the abolition of land mines and chemical weapons; an end to the testing, proliferation, and further deployment of nuclear warheads; constraints on global warming; prohibition of the death penalty, at least for children; and an international criminal court to deter and to punish war crimes and genocide. Those agreements already adopted must be fully implemented, and others should be pursued aggressively. We must also strive to correct the injustice of economic sanctions that seek to penalize abusive leaders but all too often inflict punishment on those who are already suffering from the abuse. The unchanging principles of life predate modern times. I worship Jesus Christ, whom we Christians consider to be the Prince of Peace. As a Jew, he taught us to cross religious boundaries, in service and in love. He repeatedly reached out and embraced Roman conquerors, other Gentiles, and even the more despised Samaritans. Despite theological differences, all great religions share common commitments that define our ideal secular relationships. I am convinced that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and others can embrace each other in a common effort to alleviate human suffering and to espouse peace. But the present era is a challenging and disturbing time for those whose lives are shaped by religious faith based on kindness toward each other. We have been reminded that cruel and inhuman acts can be derived from distorted theological beliefs, as suicide bombers take the lives of innocent human beings, draped falsely in the cloak of God's will. With horrible brutality, neighbors have massacred neighbors in Europe, Asia, and Africa. In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we find it necessary first to dehumanize our opponents, which is in itself a violation of the beliefs of all religions. Once we characterize our adversaries as beyond the scope of God's mercy and grace, their lives lose all value. We deny personal responsibility when we plant landmines and, days or years later, a stranger to us--often a child--is crippled or killed. From a great distance, we launch bombs or missiles with almost total impunity, and never want to know the number or identity of the victims. At the beginning of this new millennium I was asked to discuss, here in Oslo, the greatest challenge that the world faces. Among all the possible choices, I decided that the most serious and universal problem is the growing chasm between the richest and poorest people on earth. Citizens of the ten wealthiest countries are now seventy-five times richer than those who live in the ten poorest ones, and the separation is increasing every year, not only between nations but also within them. The results of this disparity are root causes of most of the world's unresolved problems, including starvation, illiteracy, environmental degradation, violent conflict, and unnecessary illnesses that range from Guinea worm to HIV/AIDS. Most work of The Carter Center is in remote villages in the poorest nations of Africa, and there I have witnessed the capacity of destitute people to persevere under heartbreaking conditions. I have come to admire their judgment and wisdom, their courage and faith, and their awesome accomplishments when given a chance to use their innate abilities. But tragically, in the industrialized world there is a terrible absence of understanding or concern about those who are enduring lives of despair and hopelessness. We have not yet made the commitment to share with others an appreciable part of our excessive wealth. This is a potentially rewarding burden that we should all be willing to assume. Ladies and gentlemen: War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children, The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes--and we must.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the Monmouth Council of Girl Scouts, Inc. 2002 Women of Distinction honorees and their significant contributions to Central New Jersey. For forty years, through its efforts, the Monmouth Council of Girl Scouts has served tens of thousands of young women across Central New Jersey. This year's women of Distinction honorees exhibit the altruistic ideals that our Nation needs now, more than ever. These ideals, no doubt grew from their involvement in Girl Scouts and the grounding principles of the Girl Scout Promise and the Girl Scout Law which read as follows: The Girl Scout Promise On my honor, I will try, to serve God and my country, to help people at all times, and to live by the Girl Scout Law. The Girl Scout Law I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do; And to, respect my self and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout. The 2002 Women of Distinction Honorees are Carole Robinson for her inspiring Girl Scout spirit, Anna Diaz-White and Paulette Roberts for their professional excellence and Sister Ellen Kelly for her dedication and service to our community. As we celebrate women's History Month, we honor each of these recipients for their hard work and dedication and we celebrate the legacy they have created for women and women's history in Central New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, again, I rise to celebrate, honor and command these outstanding New Jerseyans. I have personally observed the effective work of some of these honorees and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their invaluable contributions to our community and to New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Nan Shelby Wells on her retirement after 26 years with Princeton University. In 1979, Nan founded the University's Office of Government Affairs and later moved it to Washington as one of the first university offices to be located there. For more than two decades, Nan made friends for Princeton in Washington and has represented the University on a broad range of issues, always ready to be helpful to Members of Congress and their staffs, as well as officials in the executive agencies. A champion of higher education, especially graduate education, Nan played a central role in the creation and funding of the Education Department's Jacob Javits Fellowships, and she has been a leader in strengthening the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. For her entire career at Princeton, Nan has been an advocate for research and development and especially for the national fusion energy research program, and particularly for the excellent work that has been done at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. She has worked hard to educate policy makers and to establish and maintain strong support from the U.S. Congress and the Department of Energy for the Laboratory's mission. When I was with the Plasma Physics Laboratory, I worked closely with Nan for ten years and know her to be a great advocate for education, for investment in our country's future prosperity, and for a compassionate humane society, and especially for Princeton University. I know that all members who have worked with Nan join me in wishing her all the best as she retires from Princeton University and undertakes other activities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass an Intelligence Authorization bill before the year is over. If we don't, our nation's intelligence community will not be able to take advantage of the much-needed increases in funding that we in Congress have appropriated for them. At this time in our Nation's history, when we face so many threats, we simply can't allow that. But we need to pass an intelligence authorization bill that addresses all of the challenges we face. That means including the provision so many of us support for an independent commission to investigate the 911 terrorist attacks. Many of my constituents lost their loved ones in the World Trade Center attacks. I am here on the floor today because widows like Lori Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza from central New Jersey do not want other Americans to share the fate of their husbands. They want our government to ensure that it is doing absolutely everything it can to prevent future terrorist attacks from claiming American lives. The Administration keeps telling the public that another terrorist attack is inevitable. They say it is not whether another attack will happen, but when it will happen. Another attack is only inevitable if we do not fully examine what went wrong prior to 911. It is only inevitable if we do not learn from our mistakes. All of us want to improve coordination and communication between the government agencies that are responsible for our security. We want to streamline and integrate their functions. We want to reform how they provide for our security and we want to do it in a systematic and scientific fashion. But we cannot begin fixing things until we know exactly what is broken. When a reasonable person gets sick, he goes to the doctor to get a diagnosis. He does not try to treat himself. When a patient tries to heal himself sometimes all he does is makes things even worse. That's why Congressional oversight committees are not enough to fix our security apparatus. Both Republicans and Democrats support an independent commission because we do not believe that agencies like the FBI and CIA are capable of healing themselves. We believe that they need an independent commission of experts who will dispassionately and honestly diagnose their problems and prescribe the proper treatment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and I do not want to go on at great length about Paul Wellstone because so much has been said already, but I believe I knew Paul Wellstone longer than anyone in this Chamber, going back to, I believe, 1969, when I was in my last year at Carleton College and Paul Wellstone was in his first year on the faculty there. He was even then a dynamic, passionate person who cut a bigger swath than his stature might have led one to believe. So much has been said about how dynamic, how passionate he has been in speaking out for farmers, for workers, for people of all sorts, and what joy he brought to his campaigning, to his political activity. He has been described as a man of convictions, someone who spoke clearly and directly, someone who is never criticized for hiding his opinions, for shifting his opinions, for pulling his punches. So it might sound to some people that we are describing a cocksure, arrogant idealogue. It could not be further from the truth. In my many interactions with Paul Wellstone when he was a junior faculty member, when he was an activist going from town to town around Minnesota, when he was a friend with discussions in the evening, when he was a mentor to me when I arrived on Capitol Hill a couple of terms ago, in every instance what characterized Paul Wellstone was not cocksure opinions but questions. He was one of the best questioners I have ever known, and one left each discussion with him with a sense of having some doors opened through his questioning, some understanding gained through his questioning, and a sense of purpose gained from his questioning. What a loss.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the commitment of former assemblyman and speaker Jack Collins to his constituents in the third district and to his extended responsibility to all New Jerseyians. I am proud to speak across partisan lines in praise of Jack Collins because, so often, he reached across party lines to fight for things important to all New Jerseyians. He is the embodiment of the citizen legislator: a working teacher and farmer who also represents the people of his district and his state. As a career educator, he rose above partisan politics to defend our teachers whether it was fighting for pension enhancements and health benefit improvements or blocking ill considered voucher proposals or tenure threats. Jack Collins also defended open space retention, farmland preservation, and aid to the developmentally disabled. These are all examples of the greatness of the heart of the man, and his dedication to issues concerning New Jersey. His career as speaker was marked not just by the legislation he championed, but the house he ran. As the longest serving speaker of the Assembly in New Jersey, Jack Collins was respected by politicians of all persuasions, for his directness, for his honesty and for his convictions. I am proud to rise today to wish Jack Collins well in his retirement. While he is no longer serving in the Assembly, I am sure that New Jersey has not seen the last of Jack Collins. He has built his life around service to others, whether in the classroom or on the floor of the Assembly, and I am sure that this instinct to serve will keep him active in the political life of New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of concurrent receipt. I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation that would permit military retirees to concurrently draw their retired pay and disability benefits without an offset to either. I firmly believe that retired members of the Armed Forces who are eligible for disability compensation should receive both their retirement and disability entitlement. In fact, military retirees are the only group of federal retirees who must waive retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. That's unfair and it should be corrected. When asked about concurrent receipt, one combat veteran said it best. He said, ``When I was flying combat missions in Korea, I knew there was a possibility of being shot down, captured, and tortured by the enemy. And I was unlucky enough to have that happen. But I never dreamed that Uncle Sam would penalize me by making me pay for my own disability compensation out of the retired pay I was supposed to have earned for my 24 years of military service.'' Lt. Col. Norman E. Duquette, the person who said that, is one of nearly 500,000 disabled military retirees penalized by this unfair provisions that stops them from keeping veterans' disability compensation and full military retired pay--even though the two have entirely different purposes. On February 1, 2002, I joined several of my congressional colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush requesting that he include in his FY 2003 budget request the funds necessary to eliminate the current offset between military retired pay and VA disability compensation. Unfortunately, when President Bush delivered his FY 2003 budget request to Congress on February 4, 2002, funds for implementing concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees were not included in it. In recent days, President Bush has actually threatened to veto the Defense Authorization bill because he opposes fixing the concurrent receipt problem. That's why this motion is necessary and so important. New Jersey veterans have heard enough excuses. We owe them this for their service to our Nation, especially now, as our Nation is calling upon the members of the armed forces to defend democracy and freedom.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call the attention of my colleagues to the successes of the AMBER Alert program. As my colleagues know, this is a program that utilizes media alerts to help locate missing children within hours after they are abducted. When a child is abducted, every minute is crucial. Statistics show that, when abducted, a child's greatest enemy is time. In those critical first hours, the AMBER Alert works to aid in a child's safe return by enlisting the entire community in their recovery. The AMBER Plan idea was created in 1996 in response to the tragic murder of 9-year-old Amber Hagerman, a little girl who was kidnapped and killed while riding her bicycle near her home in Arlington, Texas. That tragedy shocked and outraged the entire community. Residents contacted radio stations in the area and suggested they broadcast special ``alerts'' over the airwaves to help in the future. Since that time, the AMBER Alert idea has spread across the country. Since the original AMBER Plan was established, 66 modified versions have been adopted at local, regional, and statewide levels; 24 states have a statewide plan. In my home State of New Jersey, Governor James E. McGreevey, together with the Office of the Attorney General and the State Police have been working to implement an AMBER Alert system. In my own district, we know something about the plague of child abduction. Megan's Law, the law that requires authorities to notify residents when a sexual predator resides in their neighborhood was named after Megan Kanka, a central New Jersey child who was the victim of a ruthless child killer. My predecessor in Congress, Representative Dick Zimmer, worked with Megan Kanka's parents to pass Megan's Law. I am proud to have recently joined with my colleagues here in Congress, Representative Martin Frost and Representative Jennifer Dunn and other legislators to introduce legislation calling for an expansion of the AMBER Alert concept nationally. Protecting our children against violence is nothing less than a national priority, and we are committed to passing this bill immediately to begin the creation of a nationwide network of AMBER Alert programs. Unfortunately, passage of an AMBER Alert package into law this year is very much in doubt. Earlier this week, Congress passed legislation that included provisions to promote a national AMBER Alert program. While that would seem to be good news, I'm afraid that passage of this bill may actually delay, not speed up, the implementation of AMBER nationally. The components that were unnecessarily added to the AMBER Alert Bill had previously been passed as stand-alone bills and I have previously voted in favor of them. On March 14, I voted to pass the ``Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act.'' On May 21 I voted to pass the ``Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act.'' On June 25, I voted to pass the ``Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act.'' And on June 26, I voted to pass the ``Sex Tourism Prohibition Act.'' A week ago, at the White House Conference on Missing and Exploited and Runaway Children, President Bush called on us in the House to pass the AMBER Alert legislation passed by the Senate. I completely agree with the President. Bipartisan legislation to create a national AMBER Alert System quickly passed the Senate and it should have passed the House and been put into law by now. Unfortunately, instead of enacting this bipartisan plan to protect kids, House Congressional leaders added all of these other provisions to the AMBER bill, an action that may make it impossible to pass this legislation prior to adjournment because some members of the Senate do not support them. In fact, several of the provisions have been pending in the Senate for over four years without action. The likely result is that we will have no national AMBER Alert system for at least another year. That is unfortunate and unnecessary. I suspect that the leadership of the House presented the legislation more for the sake of appearance than to actually bring about a national AMBER Alert system. We in Congress have a chance to do something positive to keep our children safe. I call on all of my colleagues to come together and redouble our efforts to pass AMBER Alert legislation before Congress adjourns next week. We owe it to parents and kids in central New Jersey and the nation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. ``Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? ``Why haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with Saddam?'' His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could threaten rather than strengthen our national security? I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to his own people, to the Middle East, to the world. His relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human decency. I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the Iraqi threat. This is something that I have followed with concern since I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest, for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq now. As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would unilateral American military action against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? Will an attack against Iraq strengthen our greater and more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security interests around the world and make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. Why should we undertake action that makes more likely the very thing we want to prevent? A cornered Saddam Hussein could release his arsenal of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. The CIA recently reported that Iraq is much more likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States if Saddam concludes that a U.S.-led invasion can no longer be deterred. In addition, I am also concerned that an American invasion of Iraq would send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americanism, 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. And the ensuing 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. The Administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime is a grave and immediate threat to American security. It has also simply 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? This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words of many of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new military and diplomatic doctrine. By taking unilateral, preemptive military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the international order. Instead, we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, not by taking unilateral military action. If we consult actively with our allies in the region, with NATO, with the U.N. Security Counsel, we will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run. As the world's leading power, we should use the full diplomatic force at our disposal to work with our allies to get inspectors back into Iraq without any preconditions--including access to Saddam's presidential palaces. We can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's threat. The United Nations and the international community may recognize the need to take military action. The American people will understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must always be our last resort.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents sat down with me. ``Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? Why haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with Saddam?'' His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could threaten rather than strengthen our national security? I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to his own people, to the Middle East, to the world. His relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human decency. I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the Iraqi threat. This is something that I have followed with concern since I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest, for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq now. As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would unilateral American military action against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? Will an attack against Iraq strengthen or weaken our more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security interests around the world and make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. Why should we undertake action that makes more likely the very thing we want to prevent? A cornered Saddam Hussein could release his arsenal of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. The CIA recently reported that Iraq is more likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States if Saddam concludes that a U.S.- led invasion can no longer be deterred. In addition, I am also concerned that a unilateral American invasion of Iraq would send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americanism, giving rise to future threats to our national security. While I have no doubt that we can 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. And the ensuing 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 American has largely neglected. The Administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime is a grave and immediate threat to American security. It has also simply 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? This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words of many of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new military and diplomatic doctrine. By taking unilateral, preemptive military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the international order. Instead, we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein not by taking unilateral military action. If we consult actively with our allies in the region, with NATO, with the U.N. Security Council, we will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run. As the world's leading power, we should use the full diplomatic force at our disposal to work with our allies to get inspectors back into Iraq without any preconditions--including access to Saddam's presidential palaces. We can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's threat. The United Nations and the international community may recognize the need to take military action. The American people will understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must always be our last resort.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment to H.J. Res. 114. I applaud the respected gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, for his hard work and good sense on this amendment. This proposal is not perfect. I also question whether this amendment will, in practice, serve as an adequate check on the Administration's rush to act unilaterally in Iraq. But this Amendment is by far the best option we have on the floor today. It recognizes what the other two options on the floor do not: that while the U.S. may ultimately need to act alone to disarm Iraq, we should do so only if it is absolutely necessary. The Spratt Amendment authorizes the use of the U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. If, in the absence of a satisfactory U.N. Security Council resolution, the President determines it is necessary to proceed with force, it calls on the President to seek the authorization of Congress and provides expedited consideration for authorization. I firmly believe that military force should not be used until after the U.N. inspections. Force should not be used until all diplomatic channels have been exercised. And we should clearly understand what will be required for rebuilding the country. There are several good aspects of the Spratt Resolution worth emphasizing: it discusses force in the context of disarming Saddam Hussein, not as regime change; it places the burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.N. Security Council; and it allows the U.S. to act if the Security Council does not adequately fulfill its responsibility. This is a reasoned approach that rejects the use of unilateral action, of preemptive action, and preserves the checks and balances that are required of our government. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I support the Help America Vote Act and applaud Representatives Hoyer and Ney for their good work on this legislation. The turmoil surrounding the 2000 Presidential election showed our Nation that we need to improve the instruments of voting and the means of electing our office holders. Even the Supreme Court Justices spoke of the need for uniform voting procedures. This bill does much to advance democracy. Many of the problems with our electoral process lie in the disparities of our voting system. For instance, while some counties have modern voting machines that leave little room for error, others use dated punch-card ballots that can lead to the now-famous hanging and dimpled chads. In fact, studies show that 18 percent of Americans vote using technology that prevailed around the time Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. And nearly 33 percent of Americans vote by punching out chads, a system implemented during the Johnson administration. Yet many States and localities continue to use these outdated systems because of the exorbitant cost to replace them. This bill takes many important steps towards that much-needed electoral reform. The Help America Vote Act would create the Election Assistance Commission and authorizes studies to analyze issues ranging from ballot design to voter accessibility. However, this legislation goes beyond studies and agencies. It would authorize over $400 million to buyout existing punch card voting devices from states and counties. Moreover, this legislation will provide $2.25 billion to establish and maintain more accurate voter registration lists. The bill also establishes minimum standards for State election systems. These standards include uniform means for determining what constitutes a vote on different types of equipment, sets new standards to accommodate individuals with disabilities, gives voters the opportunity to correct voting errors, ensures that uniformed and overseas voters have their votes counted, and requires more accurate registration lists. Moreover, this bill authorizes the Attorney General to monitor and enforce these standards. I am happy to support this bill as a step ahead in civil and voting rights.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Fire Prevention Week, and I urge all Americans to take steps to protect their families and loved- ones by installing and checking smoke detectors, practicing home escape plans, and identifying home hazards. In 1920, President Woodrow Wilson issued the first National Fire Prevention Day proclamation, and since 1922, National Fire Prevention Week has been observed during the beginning of October. No doubt, this act has roots that draw from the tragic fire that raged through Chicago in early October 1871, killing more than 250 people and leaving more than 100,000 others homeless. The message of National Fire Prevention Week--to install and check smoke detectors, practice home escape plans, and identify home hazards--hits particularly close to home. During a warm July night earlier this year, a faulty electric wire breathed life into a fire that quickly engulfed a bedroom in my home. My young granddaughter was sleeping in this room at the time, when a smoke detector roused her from her sleep. Fortunately, the smoke detector also aroused my wife, who was able to evacuate my home and call the fire department before anyone was hurt. That smoke detector saved the lives of my family. And yet, thousands of Americans die from fires each year. In fact, every 18 seconds a fire department responds to a fire somewhere in this country. It only takes a few moments to install a smoke detector or ensure that one is working properly. Moreover, practicing an escape plan and checking around your home for hidden fire hazards can not only prevent considerable heartache for you and your family, it can reduce the number of fires our brave firefighters have to respond to each year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, again, I rise to recognize National Fire Prevention Week. And I also ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their local police, fire, and rescue squads for their unceasing commitment to keeping our families and loved-ones safe.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. ``Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,'' he asked? ``Why haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with Saddam?'' His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could threaten rather than strengthen our national security? I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to his own people, to the Asian region, to the world. His relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human decency. I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the Iraqi threat. This is something that I followed with concern since I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature and more likely contrary to our national interests, the national interests of the United States, for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq now. As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would a unilateral American military attack against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? Will a unilateral military attack against Iraq strengthen our greater and more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security interests around the world? In other words, will it make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. Why should we undertake actions that make more likely the very thing we want to prevent? Madam Speaker, I also believe that the reaction to such a unilateral act would irrevocably weaken the international coalition we have built to fight terrorism across the globe. Yes, Iraq is one of the major threats facing international order, but it is by no means the only dangerous one. We cannot allow our contempt for the Hussein regime to detract us from achieving our long-term security goals. Now, while I have no doubt that our military would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, we risk inflaming rather than diminishing the terrorist threat to the United States. We are adding a likely threat to our security. The administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime is an immediate threat to American security, and it has simply failed to explain to the American people what would be the costs and what would be our responsibilities in a post-Saddam Iraq. This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new military and diplomatic doctrine, a dangerous, unwise doctrine. I believe that by taking unilateral, preemptive military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the international order. I believe that we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein not by taking unilateral military action. I believe that if we consult actively with our allies in the region, in NATO, in the U.N. Security Council, we will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run. Madam Speaker, we can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's threat. The United Nations and the international community may recognize the need to take military action. The American people will understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must always be our last recourse.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the commitment of Catherine S. Graham to the betterment of central New Jersey. From her first call to public service in 1957 in the clerk's office of the Mercer County Court House, Catherine Graham began a pattern of commitment to her community that continues today as a general consultant in education and human services. Her dedication to the people of central New Jersey can be seen in her battles for quality education in our public schools, which culminated in the position of Executive Director of the Trenton Educational Development Corporation, a nonprofit agency dedicated to the advocacy of quality education and continues to this day in her chairpersonship of the Trenton Parent Involvement Committee. Her dedication to the people of central New Jersey can be felt in her passion for delivering quality services in welfare, public health, and social services when she was the Director of Health and Human Services for the City of Trenton. Her dedication to the people of central New Jersey can be witnessed by her efforts in the African American community on the Board of Directors of the Trenton Branch of the NAACP, on the Board of Directors of the New Jersey State Conference of NAACP Branches and in the National Caucus of Black Women. The service to Central New Jersey performed by Catherine S. Graham is impressive and commendable and I am proud to rise here today in her honor.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of East Orange Campus of the Department of Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System. The East Orange Campus has served those who have served us all. For more than 50 years now, veterans from throughout New Jersey have received quality medical, surgical, and psychiatric care at the East Orange Campus. This institution provides more than just care for our veterans, however; as a leading teaching and research institution, the East Orange Campus has helped train New Jersey doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers while conducting pioneering work in areas such as infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, and gulf war related illnesses. I believe we have a responsibility to care for the brave men and women who served this nation, helping to win in war and preserve the peace. Providing for their healthcare is the least we can do to honor their sacrifice. In this way, the East Orange Campus has delivered on that responsibility, that promise, for more than 50 years. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, again, I rise to celebrate the East Orange Campus. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 50 years of service and care delivered by the East Orange Campus.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the commitment of bishop Jerome S. Wilcox and First Lady Elder Mae E. Wilcox to their congregants at Grace Cathedral Fellowship Ministries and to the extended community of central New Jersey. From his call to service 35 years ago, Bishop Wilcox has taken a church of thirteen members and, through hard work and God's blessings, expanded his congregation to well over five hundred. His call to the assistance of others was exhibited even earlier than his establishment of the then entitled Grace Cathedral First Bom Church in 1979. Previously, he served his community as a Vice Principal of a local public school, even then excelling as a mentor and role model. In addition to Grace Cathedral, Bishop Wilcox continues his good work in the greater central Jersey area with the Covenant Partners Association of Trenton New Jersey and the Surrounding Areas, with the Concerned Pastors, and with the Township Commission. The service to Central New Jersey performed by Bishop and First Lady Elder Wilcox is impressive and commendable and I am proud to rise here today in their honor.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the works of a great mentor, friend, colleague, and champion in Congress, Representative Patsy Mink. I am saddened by the sudden loss of such a great leader and heroine. She inspired many of us through her tireless work, commitment, and dedication throughout her tenure in Congress. I send my condolences to Representative Mink's family, Mr. John Francis Mink, her husband, and Gwendolyn Rachel Mink, her daughter. You are in my thoughts and prayers. Congresswoman Mink was the first Asian American woman to serve in Congress. During her time in Congress she championed many issues including women's rights, education, the environment, equal opportunity for all citizens, and Title IX of the Education Act. She will always be remembered as an outspoken advocate for women and children. She was the kind of public servant we all want to emulate. Patsy left a lasting legacy behind that has inspired us to continue her work. She touched the lives of many individuals, particularly women through her work on Title IX, which mandates gender equality in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX has been instrumental in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and sports activities that receive Federal funding. Before Title IX, many schools saw no problem in maintaining strict limits on the admission of women or simply refusing to admit them. Since the passage of Title IX, this has changed dramatically. In 1994, women received 38 percent of medical degrees, 43 percent of law degrees, and 44 percent of all doctoral degrees. In 1972, women received only 9 percent of medical degrees, 7 percent of law degrees and 25 percent of doctoral degrees. Female participation in sports, like receiving a college education, has had unexpected benefits for women through Title IX. Studies have shown that values learned from sports participation, such as teamwork, leadership, discipline and pride in accomplishment, are important attributes as women increase their participation in the workforce, as well as their entry into business management and ownership positions. More and more women are entering and graduating from college and graduate school. More women are entering and excelling in sports activities. And, more women are entering the corporate world and holding management positions. Representative Mink's leadership in enacting Title IX will continue to make a difference for young women. This is why today in the Education and the Workforce Committee we passed a bill to name Title IX after Patsy Mink. Thanks to her courage and foresight the country is better as women have the opportunity to achieve their full position. Her work enabled many young women to enter the field of sports, medicine, law, and business. Women today have been empowered to reach as far as they want because of the work Representative Mink championed in Congress. Representative Patsy Mink's dedication and perseverance will be admired. She will be forever known as a strong, intelligent, and inspirational woman. She left a legacy behind that motivated and touched me deeply. Her work has allowed women to accomplish and reach for any dream they desire to achieve. Thank you, Patsy Mink.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and at risk of being somewhat repetitive of what our other colleagues have said, I just want to finish by emphasizing some really very important points. When this Congress began, the Republicans promised, in fact, everyone promised to safeguard Social Security and Medicare. They said the trust fund surpluses would be maintained and saving those surpluses would be important for the retirement of the baby boomers. Their plan, however, was to dissipate as much of the surplus as possible, in their words, to get it out of Washington instead of paying off the debt. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was so diligent in pointing out again and again and again that they left no margin for error. We all said that the projected surpluses were just that. They were projections, not money in the bank; and we reminded Republicans that they needed a margin for error. The gentleman could see it. I remember when he said we did not know what unforeseen circumstances would arise. But we could be sure that natural emergencies, international crises, economic downturns or other things would arise. Well, this dedication, this overwhelming dedication, fixation on tax cuts, no matter what the circumstances or the consequences, has run the budget into a ditch; and it now risks the livelihood of hard-working Americans. Businesses are not investing. Real business investment which had posted double digit growth in the 1990s is still declining. Scores of corporations have gone bankrupt. Consumer confidence has dropped in each of the last 4 months and is at the lowest level since November of 2001. Why is that? Businesses understand that this is not sound fiscal policy for our Nation. They understand that we are building up a debt and the interest can crush us. An extra $1.3 trillion that will be wasted on interest expenses would have been more than enough to cover a decade's worth of cost in strengthening Social Security. May 2001, interest was $621 billion over a 10-year period, 2002 to 2011. A month or two ago it was up to $1.9 trillion. Now, just to finish up, let me drive this home. For each American this means about $7,000 of interest, each American, child, woman, man, $7,000 to pay off, down the drain, for no productive use, no good to anyone. I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget for arranging this Special Order.