Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on Monday February 23, 2009 I did not return to Washington in time and missed three votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 911--Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2009 (rollcall 72), ``yes'' on H.R. 44--Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act (rollcall 73), and ``yes'' on H.R. 601--Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act (rollcall 74).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mike Sheehy, the National Security Adviser for the Speaker. Mike Sheehy has given three decades of service to his country, much of it here in the House of Representatives. When the Speaker first appointed me to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 6 years ago, Mike was one of the first people I turned to. His deep experience on intelligence matters, as well as his knowledge of the House and its Members, have served the Speaker and all of us well over the years. Especially after the Speaker asked me to chair the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, I have frequently sought his advice on a wide range of issues, and I've found him to be always thoughtful and well-informed, and I might add, always calm. He is a consummate professional. As he leaves his position here on Capitol Hill, I and others want to recognize him, thank him and wish him well.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). We are told that America is in the midst of the worst economic storm since the Great Depression. Millions of people are hurting across the United States and in my home state of New Jersey, New Jersey's unemployment rate has risen to 7.1 percent from 4.2 percent just a year ago. Our nation's economy is in recession, and we must respond with every tool in our toolbox to put Americans back to work and rebuild our struggling economy. Economists have predicted that the unemployment rate may exceed 12 percent this year. What to do? We could let the free market continue to spiral downward or we could pass a bill with a smaller price tag, ignoring the lessons learned from Congress's previous attempt at stimulating the economy through rebate sent out in spring of 2008, last year's so-called check in the mail. The time has come for a bold, national response. Economists, business leaders, financial experts, almost everyone says that the federal government--and only the federal government--can inject into the economy a stimulus of sufficient size to make up for the frozen, collapsing economy. The package we are considering today has the potential to create 3.5 million much needed new jobs in the short term. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is designed to help the United States climb out of the current recession through targeted, job- creating spending, responsible investments in the nation's social safety net to help Americans weather the difficult months ahead, and tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. Importantly, this bill includes critical investments in research and development, which lay the ground work for innovation and sustainable, long-term economic growth. The political process to this point has been torturous. However, the President, the Speaker, and the Committee chairs have produced promptly what the President has called for and what the country needs. Agreed, not all parts of the bill are going to be equally stimulative. But we want a broad approach; we want our stimulative eggs in various baskets, This Act is huge and hugely important. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would help to put our economy on the right track by quickly creating up to 3.5 million new jobs for Americans suffering during this depression. Some of these jobs, more than 1.2 million, would be created in the construction industry through a strong investment in improving our nation's transportation and water infrastructure. The Act will inject $29 billion to repair our nation's crumbling roads and bridges, including funding for ready-to-go road and bridge modernization projects in my home state of New Jersey. This investment would create 835,000 jobs in the next two years. Additionally, this bill would invest $16.4 billion in public transportation, helping transit agencies such as NJ Transit that are struggling to meet increased demand and $18 billion for clean water, environmental restoration, and flood control projects creating another 375,000 jobs. H.R. 1 would invest in additional projects that my Central New Jersey constituents refer to as ``green stimulus.'' These investments would create good American jobs that cannot be outsourced, while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and protecting our environment. These jobs will be the kind of jobs that will be in demand for many years, once the economy gets going again and as we make the transition to a sustainable energy system; as we must and as we surely will. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would provide $30 billion to transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and production system so they can handle decentralized renewable energy sources. This legislation includes more than $23.2 billion in incentives to promote renewable energy, help low and middle income Americans weatherize their homes, and decrease energy consumption by the federal government. It will also provide $20 billion in tax incentives such as the renewable energy production tax credit, the advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, and the consumer energy- efficiency tax credits. Responding to the nation's rising unemployment rate, this bill would devote $4 billion to job training programs and would extend unemployment benefits through December 31, 2009, increasing benefits by $25 per week for individuals looking for work. The current economic downturn has forced painful cuts in services. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would make sound investments in public education. This legislation would provide $13 billion to help disadvantaged students reach high academic standards and $12 billion for special education. While the bill includes a $54 billion state stabilization fund to prevent teacher layoffs and cutbacks in education, I regret that it no longer contains the $20 billion provided in the House version to help states rebuild our nation's crumbling schools. Still, there is much here to cheer for our local school boards and the taxpayers who support the schools through our property taxes. These school bonds can be used for construction. Additionally, to ensure that families can send their children to college, this bill would increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500, to $5,350 and would help 4 million more students attend college with a new $2,500 college tuition tax credit for families. What pleases me most is the commitment in this legislation to science. I am deeply gratified that this bill reflects a profound commitment to renewing our nation's innovation infrastructure. Research not merely luxury to be undertaken only in times of economic prosperity. The truth is that scientific research is perhaps the most powerful economic engine, creating jobs in the short-term and building our economy for the long-term. All together, the recovery package includes nearly $23 billion to support scientific research and facilities, including $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, $2 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health. There is no doubt that these funds will create jobs. Lab technicians will be hired to carry out projects that previously went unfunded. Electricians will be put to work wiring new laboratory work. And construction workers will begin refurbishing our neglected laboratories and building the facilities that will transform science for the twenty-first century. Of course, the ideal project is one that keeps on giving, and that is exactly what scientific research does. The innovation and discoveries that come from research form the roots from which our economy grows and prospers. For too long, we have underinvested in science, and we will never know the resulting costs to our prosperity. But we know that science will be the foundation of our nation's future economic vitality. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``We will restore science to its rightful place.'' That place is at the very heart of our nation's progress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act acknowledges this fact and provides an important first step toward the sustained investment that will prevent the need for future recovery packages. As American workers lose their jobs, more and more face losing their health insurance coverage as well. Job losses have caused Medicaid and SCHIP rolls rise by 1.0 million, further straining state budgets already stretched thin due to lower tax revenues. This bill would increase temporarily the federal government's contribution to Medicaid, giving New Jersey an additional $2 billion. For workers able to continue their health coverage through COBRA, the bill would subsidize COBRA premiums by 65 percent for nine months. This two-prong approach will provide health care for millions of newly unemployed workers and their families. In addition to helping families maintain their health insurance coverage, this bill seeks to improve health care quality and its value. This bill would promote Health Information Technology systems, which could help reduce medical errors while lowering administrative costs by accelerating their adoption and usage among doctors and hospitals. This bill provides additional funding for prevention, which improves health at a good value by treating problems at the earliest stage before they become costly health care crises. Finally, this bill includes $1.1 billion for medical research to improve the value of health care spending by identifying the most effective treatments for given health conditions, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would address the struggling economy by putting money back in the pockets of American families, workers, students and businesses through $276.5 billion worth of tax cuts. Ninety-five percent of working Americans would receive a tax cut through a refundable tax credit of up to $400 per worker that will be quickly distributed by reducing tax withholding from workers' paychecks. It would prevent 26 million Americans from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax and lower the taxes of more than 16 million families by increasing the child tax credit and expanding the earned income tax credit. This bill includes a number of provisions that would help businesses create new jobs in this difficult economy. It would allow businesses to improve cash flow by allowing businesses to write off 90 percent of losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against taxes assessed over the previous five years. In addition, it would help businesses expand by extending the increased bonus depreciation for businesses making investments in new plants and equipment in 2009. Finally, this legislation would double the amount of money businesses can deduct on their taxes for capital investments and new equipment. Through this comprehensive approach, we can begin to put the American economy back on the right track. We must approve the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, what pleases me most about the economic recovery bill that we just passed is the commitment in this legislation to science. I'm deeply gratified that the bill reflects a profound commitment to renewing our Nation's innovation infrastructure. Research is not merely a luxury to be undertaken only in times of prosperity. The truth is that scientific research is perhaps the most powerful economic engine, creating jobs in the short-term and building our economy for the long-term. Altogether, the recovery package includes nearly $23 billion to support scientific research and facilities, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the National Institutes of Health. There is no doubt that these funds will create jobs. Lab technicians will be hired to carry out projects previously that went unfunded. Electricians will be put to work wiring new laboratory experiments, and construction workers will begin refurbishing our neglected laboratories and building the facilities that will transform science for the 21st century.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak on winning the Memorial de Caen International Human Rights Competition. Senator Lesniak's address, entitled ``The Road to Justice and Peace'' was chosen by an international panel of judges over a number of entries from all over the world. In his speech, Senator Lesniak makes the case that the death penalty has failed, gives examples of miscarriages of justice and argues that the death penalty ``serves no penal purpose and commits society to the belief that revenge is preferable to redemption.'' When New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976, Senator Lesniak was the prime sponsor and mover of the bill. His passion for justice, combined with his patient, consistent leadership on the issue, had achieved victory for a cause he felt so strongly about. It was not always the case. Ray Lesniak admits in the Introduction of his book The Road to Abolition: How New Jersey Abolished the Death Penalty, that he was not always a death penalty opponent. Early in his legislative career, the Senator voted to reinstate the death penalty in New Jersey. He tells of how he feared the unpopularity of a vote to abolish and was swayed by the argument that he might be perceived as ``soft on crime''. He gave no thought to the morality of the issue or to the possibility of executing an innocent person. He now says that ``The 20 plus intervening years taught me that public service should not be about seeking approval, glory or fame. Trinkets. They're nothing more than trinkets.'' When Governor Corzine signed the bill abolishing the death penalty in New Jersey, the Sant'Egidio Community, which is at the forefront of the international anti-death penalty movement, arranged for the lighting of the Colosseum in Rome. The edifice that once was the scene of deadly gladiator combat and executions was bathed for 24 hours in golden light celebrating New Jersey's decision to halt executions. A fitting tribute to the work of Senator Raymond Lesniak. Ray Lesniak is one of the longest serving and most skilled members of the New Jersey Legislature. First elected to the General Assembly in 1977, he has served in the New Jersey Senate since 1983. His legislative career is filled with initiatives that have become law and ideas that have moved our society ahead. His work has been recognized by numerous organizations. In 2002, Senator Lesniak was named ``Humanitarian of the Year'' by Community Access Unlimited for his legislative efforts on behalf of people with disabilities and for providing support to working families and the homeless. In 2003 he was awarded ``Legislator of the Year'' by the Medical Society of New Jersey for working to make health care more affordable and accessible, expanding the PAAD low-cost prescription program to cover more seniors, and expanding cancer and diabetes research and education. He was also honored by the American Cancer Society, the Polish American World and the Department of the Public Defender for his outstanding efforts in the legislature. Ray Lesniak also takes great pride in having been the Grand Marshal of the Pulaski Day Parade in New York City in 2004. Ray Lesniak is a native of Elizabeth and a life-long New Jersey resident. He was raised in a political household where his mother, the late Stephanie Lesniak, served as a Democratic County Committeewoman for 30 years. She was his biggest fan and supporter and the inspiration for his career in government until her death in 2003 at the age of 85. She would be proud that her son has won international recognition for his achievements, but not surprised. When Senator Lesniak accepted the award from the Memorial de Caen, he said he was proud as an American to receive this recognition for the defense of human rights. He is dedicating his first place winnings to The Road to Justice and Peace, the non-profit foundation he formed to advance the abolition of the death penalty around the globe. Ray Lesniak teaches us that a dedicated public servant, who works tirelessly for a goal, can make a difference that has a far effect. I salute Senator Lesniak for his life's work and congratulate him on winning the International Human Rights Competition. His prize winning entry follows: I come here today not to plead a case for a victim whose fundamental human rights have been violated. But, rather, to plead the case that the death penalty violates the fundamental human rights of mankind. In my country, the United States of America, over 3,000 human beings are awaiting execution, some for a crime they did not commit. I plead the case that the death penalty in the United States, Iraq, Pakistan, Japan, wherever, exposes the innocent to execution, causes more suffering to the family members of murder victims, serves no penal purpose and commits society to the belief that revenge is preferable to redemption. On December 17, 2007, New Jersey became the first state in the Union to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976. When Governor Jon Corzine signed the legislation I sponsored into law, he also commuted the death sentences of eight human beings. The Community of Sant'Egidio in Rome, Italy, a lay Catholic organization committed to abolishing the death penalty throughout the world, lit up the Roman Colosseum to celebrate this victory for human rights. How was this victory achieved? First, by demonstrating that the death penalty creates the possibility of executing an innocent human being. One of our founding founders, Benjamin Franklin, quoting the British Jurist William Blackstone, said: ``It's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison an innocent person.'' Yet Governor Corzine and my legislation let no guilty person go free. It merely replaced the death penalty with life without parole, eliminating the possibility of putting to death an innocent human being. Byron Halsey could have been one such human being. On July 9, 2007, Byron walked out of jail a free man after serving 19 years in prison for a most heinous crime: the murder of a seven year old girl and an eight year old boy. Both had been sexually assaulted, the girl was strangled to death, and nails were driven into the boy's head. Halsey, who had a sixth grade education and severe learning disabilities, was interrogated for 30 hours shortly after the children's bodies were discovered. He confessed to the murders and, even though his statement was factually inaccurate as to the location of the bodies and the manner of death, his confession was admitted into evidence in a court of law. The prosecution sought the death penalty. Halsey was convicted of two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced to two life terms: narrowly evading the death penalty by the vote of one juror who held out against it during the sentencing portion of his trial. After spending nearly half his life behind bars, post-trial DNA analysis determined, with scientific certainty, that Byron did not commit the murders. A witness for the prosecution at his trial is now accused of those crimes. But for the good judgment of that one juror, Mr. Halsey might have been executed, and the real killer would never have been discovered and brought to justice. Stories like Byron's are not uncommon. Since 1973, 130 human beings on death rows throughout the United States have been released from jail for being wrongfully convicted. During that time over 1,100 prisoners were executed. How many of them were innocent? 3,309 remain on death row throughout the U.S. How many of them are innocent? How many of the innocent will be executed? It could be Troy Davis. He's been imprisoned since 1989 in the State of Georgia for a murder he maintains he did not commit. In one of Davis's numerous appeals, the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court said, ``In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter.'' Coles had testified against Davis at the trial. On September 23, 2008, less than two hours before Davis was due to be put to death by lethal injection, he received a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 14 the stay was lifted and the State of Georgia issued an Execution Warrant for October 27. Three days before this execution date, the 11th Circuit Court stayed the execution to consider a new appeal. Will Troy Davis be the next innocent person saved from execution, or will he be the next innocent person executed? Does the death penalty serve any purpose, other than to do harm to everyone involved, and society in general? Does the death penalty even console the families of murder victims? Not according to 63 family members of murder victims who stated, in a letter to the New Jersey Legislature: ``We are family members and loved ones of murder victims. We desperately miss the parents, children, siblings, and spouses we have lost. We live with the pain and heartbreak of their absence every day and would do anything to have them back. We have been touched by the criminal justice system in ways we never imagined and would never wish on anyone. Our experience compels us to speak out for change. Though we share different perspectives on the death penalty, every one of us agrees that New Jersey's capital punishment system doesn't work, and that our state is better off without it.'' Or more specifically stated by Vicki Schieber whose daughter, Shannon, was raped and murdered, ``The death penalty is a harmful policy that exacerbates the pain for murdered victims' families.'' Some argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, yet more than a dozen studies published in the past 10 years have been inconclusive on its deterrent effect. In testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, testified that states without a death penalty statute have significantly lower murder rates than their counterparts with the death penalty. Mr. Dieter also testified that of the four geographic regions in the U.S., the South, which carries out 80% percent of all executions in the country, has the highest murder rate. Conversely, the Northeast, which implements less than 1 percent of all executions, has the lowest murder rate in the nation. Even those who believe the death penalty can act as a deterrent admit that existing research has inconclusive results. Professor Erik Lillquist of Seton Hall University School of Law testified that recent econometric studies conclude that the death penalty can act as a deterrent, but only if the death penalty is implemented in a ``sufficient'' number of cases. Conversely, he also maintained that other studies suggest that executions can cause a ``brutalization effect,'' in which the murder rate actually increases. Professor Lillquist stated: ``It just may be impossible to know what the deterrent or brutalization effect is here . . . at least as an empirical matter--simply because we're never going to have a large enough database that can be removed from the confounding variables, such that we can come to a conclusion. When scientists run studies in general, we try to do it in a controlled environment. You can't do that with murders and the death penalty.'' Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law and Public Health, Columbia University and Steven Durlauf, Kenneth J. Arrow Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote in a letter to the editor in the Philadelphia Enquirer on November 17, 2007: ``Serious researchers studying the death penalty continue to find that the relationship between executions and homicides is fragile and complex, inconsistent across the states, and highly sensitive to different research strategies. The only scientifically and ethically acceptable conclusion from the complete body of existing social science literature on deterrence and the death penalty is that it's impossible to tell whether deterrent effects are strong or weak, or whether they exist at all.'' The professors concluded: ``Until research survives the rigors of replication and thorough testing of alternative hypotheses and sound impartial peer review, it provides no basis for decisions to take lives.'' While the death penalty inevitably executes the innocent, exacerbates the pain and suffering of families of murder victims and serves no penal purpose, the worse damage it does is to a society that believes it needs to seek revenge over redemption. The need for revenge leads to hate and violence. Redemption opens the door to healing and peace. Revenge slams it shut. A society that turns its back on redemption commits itself to holding on to anger and a need for vengeance in a quest for fulfillment that can not be met by those destructive emotions. Redemption instead opens the door to the space that asks healing questions in the wake of violence: questions of crime prevention, questions of why some human beings put such a low value on life that they readily take it from others, questions that help us understand how to help those impacted by violence; questions that take a back seat, and are often ignored, when our minds and emotions are filled with a need for revenge. Thirty-six states and the federal government of the United States still impose the death penalty. The United States has more human beings in prison and more violence than just about every other civilized country in the world. As long as we continue to choose revenge over redemption, it's likely we will continue to be a leader in the amount of violence and size of our prison population. It doesn't have to stay that way. When New Jersey abolished its death penalty, it chose redemption over revenge, healing over hate, peace over war. We need more states and our federal government to make those same choices. Consider the following headlines which appeared side by side in the New York Times: ``Iraqi Leaders Say the Way Is Clear for the Execution of `Chemical Ali'.'' The other headline read: ``Bomber at Funeral Kills Dozens in Pakistan.'' Both Iraq and Pakistan have the death penalty. After the announcement setting the execution date for ``Chemical Ali,'' San Jawarno, whose father and other family members were killed in attacks directed by ``Chemical Ali'' said, ``Now my father is resting in peace in his grave because Chemical Ali will be executed.'' The two events, the bombing in Pakistan and the words of the bereaved son whose father was killed, are not unrelated. We must speak up, at every forum, in our homes, our churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, in our legislative bodies, wherever an opportunity exists, to convince political leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, anyone who will listen, that the death penalty has no reason to exist, promotes violence, and brings peace to no one: in the grave or not. That was to be the end of my plea to abolish the death penalty. Then I read a report from Amnesty International about the 13-year-old girl who was stoned to death in a stadium packed with 1000 spectators in Kismayo, Somalia. Her offense? Islamic militants accused her of adultery after she reported she had been raped by three men. Will this senseless, inhumane killing ever end? Perhaps. The brutality of the death penalty and of Islamic militants can end, if we speak out against it, wherever it exists, in any shape, in any form. The death penalty is a random act of brutality. Its application throughout the United States is random, depending on where the murder occurred, the race and economic status of who committed the murder, the race and economic status of the person murdered and, of course, the quality of the legal defense. I'm proud of the people of the State of New Jersey for electing political leaders who ended this random act of brutality. And I applaud Amnesty International for alerting the good people of the world to the brutality of the Islamic militants in Somalia who stoned to death that poor girl. No good comes from the death penalty, whether it's imposed by duly elected governments, or by radical, religious fanatics. No good. The burden of proof in the Court of Public Opinion should be on those advocating for the death penalty. That burden has not been met. Just ask Byron Halsey. Or Troy Davis. Or, if you could, that 13-year-old girl.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-sponsor and strong supporter of H. Con. Res. 35, a resolution to recognize the 100th anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and acknowledge the numerous contributions of the NAACP in helping create a more just and equitable society. The NAACP is the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States. For the past 100 years, the association has fought actively and fervently for equal justice for all Americans under the idea that all men and women are created equal. In February 1909, a handful of courageous and fearless citizens-- including Ida Wells Barnett, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villiard, William English Walling, Henry Moscowitz and W.E.B. Du Bois-- formed the National Negro Committee with the intent of addressing the social, economic and political rights of African-Americans. This organization would later become the NAACP, and for the next century would dedicate itself to eliminating racial hatred and ending racial discrimination. The NAACP has accomplished and will continue to accomplish great things for our nation. In 1954, the NAACP achieved one of its greatest victories in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case when the Supreme Court overturned segregation in the nation's public schools. This decision rendered ``separate but unequal'' unconstitutional. More importantly it helped to break down the barriers that divided the nation. Through nonviolent methods such as protests, marches and media outreach the NAACP was instrumental in moving President Truman's Executive Order banning discrimination in the armed forces. The NAACP also played an active role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The NAACP continues to fight for the rights of Americans confined to the corners of our society. The NAACP maintains active branches nationwide, including one in the 12th District of New Jersey, located in Trenton. I am grateful to the NAACP members who live in my Congressional District including Edith Savage-Jennings, a pioneer of the civil rights movement. The work they do to continue to advance the struggle for civil rights in our country is an inspiration to us all. The NAACP gracefully and tirelessly has fought for the political, social, economic, and educational rights of all Americans, and has sought to ensure that our nation recognized the inalienable rights of all citizens, regardless of race, class, or ethnicity. They have paved the way for some of our most celebrated leaders like my good friend John Lewis and President Barack Obama to accomplish what they have. Moving forward the NAACP will shift its focus to ensure the attainment of human rights for all; a noble, honorable and needed effort. The enormity of the NAACP's contributions these past 100 years is immeasurable, and I am certain that the next 100 years will produce more accomplishments and milestones for this historic and vital organization. I am proud to join with my colleagues in supporting this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of this resolution recognizing National Engineers Week and the important contributions to society made by engineers. A range of activities and programs highlighting Engineers Week will be taking place across the country. Communities, schools, and museums will host events to excite young people about engineering by helping them see the role this discipline plays in the world around them. This resolution and National Engineers Week come at a fitting time. We are in a dire economic situation, in part because of a failure to sufficiently support science and engineering in the past. Research and development will be the foundation for the discoveries that will fuel our economic recovery and sustain our long term economic growth. Engineering is often the critical bridge between the basic science and the productive innovation or the marketable product. It is entirely proper that we acknowledge this important field at this critical time. National Engineers Week is the most visible event in an ongoing, year-round effort by the National Engineers Week Foundation to support and encourage interest in engineering and technology. As Congress supports the excellent programming of National Engineers week, it should follow the Foundation's lead in making a commitment to science, research, engineering, and education. Congress should work to ensure that all individuals who choose to pursue an education in engineering and related fields have the opportunity to do so. And Congress should fully fund the America COMPETES Act and make a sustained investment in our national innovation infrastructure. This resolution recognizes the value of National Engineers Week and engineering-related disciplines generally. I am delighted to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 154, which honors John Dingell for being the longest serving member of the House of Representatives. John Dingell came to Congress in 1955 at the age of 29 and in his more than 53 years in the House, including 16 as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has represented energetically and effectively the constituents of his southeastern Michigan district. Longevity alone, however, does not distinguish John Dingell, and the Dean of the House has been at the center of almost every major legislative accomplishment of this body since his earliest days in Congress. In 1965, Representative Dingell presided over the House chamber when the House passed the Social Security Act of 1965, creating Medicare. Years later, the one-time forest ranger, and avid outdoorsman, helped usher through Congress the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Clean Air Act of 1990. Throughout his distinguished career, he has led the fight to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care, fought to close corporate loopholes, investigated government waste of taxpayer dollars, and advocated for the safety of consumers. Most recently, Representative Dingell played a key roll in the passage of the. Consumer Products Safety and Improvement Act, which was signed into law last August. In my few years in the House, I have been honored to have served beside John Dingell. I have learned a great deal from such a thoughtful, serious legislator, and I look forward to working with him as Congress continues to address the country's economic, health care, and climate challenges. I join my colleagues in honoring an institution in the House of Representatives, John Dingell, for his service to his constituents, the Congress, and the country.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise to highlight the importance of science in our American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Research and innovation lie behind the long-term economic success of this country, and it's worth noting that science research creates jobs now. A report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation determined that for each additional $1 billion invested in science in the economic recovery, 20,000 American jobs are created. These jobs go not just to scientists but to research assistants, electricians, technicians and construction workers. We need to provide a comprehensive set of jobs in this package so that our new roads and bridges built with the funds lead to research facilities and high tech start-up companies that will provide the foundation for the economy of the 21st century. The ideal project is one that keeps on giving, and that is exactly what scientific research projects do. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``We will restore science to its rightful place.'' The legislation we have been considering places science in an important place in short-term job creation and long-term economic growth.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to reiterate my support for H.R. 384, The TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009. President Obama supported the release the second $350 billion in funds authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (Public Law 110-343), and it is incumbent upon us both to provide him with the same level of resources the outgoing Administration had to tackle this economic crisis, and to improve and strengthen the terms under which those resources will be deployed as compared to the terms under which the previous Administration was operating. The legislation we approved would make many important improvements to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. For example, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act focuses on the mortgage foreclosure crisis, which is central to the broader economic crisis, by requiring the Treasury immediately to commit no less than $40 billion and as much as $100 billion on foreclosure mitigation efforts. The bill would mandate that at least $20 billion be applied directly to a systematic program to guarantee loan modifications for families in danger of losing their homes, and requires that a foreclosure mitigation plan be developed and implemented quickly. In addition, it would increase the availability of credit to consumers, municipalities and businesses. It would clarify that TARP authority includes authority to support the availability of consumer loans, including auto loans and student loans, and authority to support state and local governments through the purchase of or provision of credit enhancement for municipal securities. It would also provide additional assistance to auto manufacturers under the TARP as an extension of the emergency assistance provided by the outgoing Administration. Finally, it would add restrictions on executive compensation for institutions receiving TARP funding, and strengthen and expand accountability and oversight by requiring assisted organizations to report to Congress on a quarterly basis on their use of TARP funding, and requiring FDIC-insured depository institutions to report on changes in lending activity related to TARP funding. For these reasons, I supported H.R. 384, which passed overwhelmingly in the House on January 21. I proposed a number of amendments to the bill, simply to strengthen it even further, and I was very pleased that one of those amendments was included in the Manager's Amendment before the bill went to the floor. My amendment went to the heart of the TARP program--the troubled assets--defined by the TARP as ``residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages'' issued on or before March 14, 2008. These troubled assets are hard to value. An auction is one way to value them. My amendment would help us finally establish values for the troubled assets, liquidate them, and free up the credit markets, without using taxpayer dollars. Indeed, even two weeks ago, the Treasury Department had little positive to say about lending activity. In his statement of January 13, 2009, Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari noted that ``we are still at a point of low confidence--both due to the financial crisis and the economic downturn. As long as confidence remains low, banks will remain cautious about extending credit . . . we should not be surprised that lending and borrowing will be lower during this current economic downturn [but we] absolutely need our banks to continue to make credit available.'' My amendment would require the Treasury Secretary to facilitate an auction of troubled assets, not using TARP funds for the purchase, but by soliciting bids from institutions that volunteer to participate. If the auction does not take place within three months of the enactment of the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, the Treasury Secretary is required to report to Congress with an explanation as to why, and a description of the mechanism by which the Secretary feels the troubled assets could most expeditiously be valued and liquidated. My amendment protects taxpayer dollars because while the auction of troubled assets is required, no TARP funds would be used for the purchase. Further my amendment will give Treasury and Congress much needed information to help develop better-informed plans for addressing the issue going forward. I would like to thank Chairman Frank, again, for including this simple but important measure in the TARP Reform and Accountability Act. I would also like to thank Chairman Frank for promising to work with me to implement another reform, which we both agree is needed to ensure fairness in the allocation of TARP funds. That measure would provide that an institution that has applied for but been denied TARP funding could appeal the denial to the Financial Stability Oversight Board. Such a measure would be valuable to banks such as the National City Bank of Cleveland, which had applied for TARP funds, had not received them, and was then taken over by another bank which had received TARP funds. The public is outraged that takeovers of that nature can occur on the government's dime. I thank Chairman Frank for agreeing to work with me to provide additional protections for viable banks which applied for but have been denied TARP funds. I supported the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, and if the Senate does not promptly take up and complete the measure, I will be eager to work with President Obama to address our economic crisis under terms and conditions that provide much better taxpayer protections than those that had been in operation under the outgoing Administration.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Nadler, DeFazio, Lipinski, McMahon, Ellison Amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This amendment would increase the overall capital transit funding in H.R. 1 to $12 billion by adding an additional $1.5 billion to the Rail Modernization formula program and an additional $1.5 billion to the transit New Starts program. According to the American Public Transportation Association, the $12 billion provided by this bill could help to fund 736 worthy, needed, and fully-screened transit projects that could be started in less than 90 days. Increasing funding for capital transit systems will help states to create new jobs quickly, the precise goal that H.R. 1 seeks to accomplish. Additionally, this funding will help local transit agencies meet increased demand for public transit nationwide. In the first half of 2008, demand for public transit rose 4.4 percent over the record highs of 2007. In New Jersey, NJ Transit is providing more than 900,000 weekday trips on its trains, buses and light-rail vehicles. Public transit agencies are struggling to keep up with demand, and many of them are considering raising their fares in order to afford necessary improvements to their facilities. This amendment would provide this much needed funding to keep public transportation moving and affordable. Supporting public transportation, especially passenger rail, should be a central element of our national strategy to slow the rate of global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. Passenger rail consumes 21 percent less energy per passenger mile than automobiles and 17 percent less than airplanes. It releases half the amount of greenhouse gases per passenger mile as either air or car travel. Public transportation is an essential component of easing traffic congestion, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting our environment, and preserving open space in New Jersey and across the country. This amendment will create jobs, protect our environment, and aid struggling public transit agencies, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise this evening in support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). America is in the midst of the worst economic storm since the Great Depression. Millions of people are hurting across the United States and in my home state of New Jersey. New Jersey's unemployment rate has risen to 7.1 percent from 4.2 percent just a year ago. Our nation's economy is in recession, and we must respond with every tool in our tool box to help put Americans back to work and rebuild our struggling economy. We could let the free market continue to spiral downward or we could pass a bill with a smaller price tag, ignoring the lessons learned from Congress's previous attempt at stimulating the economy through rebate sent out in spring of 2008. We can no longer wait to act. The time has come for a bold, national, response. Economists have predicted that the unemployment rate will skyrocket to over 12 percent this year. The package we are considering today has the potential to create 3 to 4 million much needed new jobs in the short term. The House approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, comprehensive legislation that through targeted, job-creating spending, responsible investments in the nation's social safety net to help Americans weather the difficult months ahead, and tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans will help the United States climb out of the current recession. Importantly, this bill includes critical investments in research and development, which lay the ground work for innovation and sustainable, long-term economic growth. It is unfortunate that not one member of the minority saw fit to approve this important bill. In the short term, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would help create up to 1.5 million new construction jobs by providing $30 billion to states for transportation, infrastructure, and energy efficiency improvements. This would translate to approximately $777 million for ready-to-go road and bridge modernization projects in my home state of New Jersey. Infrastructure improvements would serve a dual purpose; creating 835,000 jobs and helping to address the backlog of needed improvements to our nation's transportation network that total $61 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This bill would also invest $10 billion in public transportation, $333 million to relieve congestion on our roadways in New Jersey. This bill would also create an additional 375,000 jobs by investing $19 billion for clean water, environmental restoration, and flood control projects. H.R. 1 will fund a number of additional projects that my Central New Jersey constituents refer to as ``green stimulus.'' Investment in ``green stimulus'' can create good American jobs that cannot be outsourced, while reducing our reliance on foreign fuels, protecting our environment and slowing the rate of global warming. Specifically, this legislation would provide $32 billion to transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and production system so they can handle renewable energy sources. This legislation includes more than $26 billion in incentives to promote renewable energy and help low and middle income Americans weatherize their homes. These incentives include the renewable energy production tax credit, the energy research and development tax credit, and the consumer energy- efficiency tax credits. Responding to the nation's rising unemployment rate, this bill would devote $4 billion to job training programs and would extend unemployment benefits through December 31, 2009, increasing benefits by $25 per week for individuals looking for work. The current economic downturn has hit hard public school districts, which are being forced to make painful cuts in services. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan makes sound investments in public education. The legislation would provide $20 billion to states to rebuild the nation's crumbling schools. In particular, the bill includes a provision from a bill that I authored, the School Building Enhancement Act, which would give schools grants to increase their energy efficiency helping them to save thousands of dollars annually on their energy costs. Additionally, to ensure that families can send their children to college, this bill would increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500, to $5,350 and would help 4 million more students attend college with a new $2,500 college tuition tax credit for families. I am deeply gratified that the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act reflects a profound commitment to renewing our nation's innovation infrastructure. In crafting this package, Congress has recognized that research and innovation are not merely luxuries to be undertaken only in time of economic prosperity. The truth is that scientific research is perhaps the most powerful economic engine, creating jobs in the short-term and building our economy for the long-term. All together, the recovery package includes nearly $16 billion to support scientific research and facilities, including $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, $2 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and $3.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health. There is no doubt that these funds will create jobs. Lab technicians will be hired to carry out projects that previously went unfunded. Electricians will be put to work wiring new laboratory equipment. And construction workers will begin refurbishing our neglected laboratories and building the facilities that will transform science for the twenty-first century. Of course, the ideal project is one that keeps on giving, and that is exactly what scientific research does. The innovation and discoveries that come from research form the roots from which our economy grows and prospers. For too long, we have underinvested in science, and we will never know the resulting costs to our prosperity. But we know that science will be the foundation of our nation's future economic vitality. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``We will restore science to its rightful place.'' That place is at the very heart of our nation's progress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act acknowledges this fact and provides an important first step toward the sustained investment that will prevent the need for future recovery packages. As American workers lose their jobs, more and more face losing their health insurance coverage as well. Job losses have boosted Medicaid and SCHIP rolls, straining state budgets already stretched thin due to lower tax revenues. To address these problems, this bill would allow states to temporarily cover their unemployed workers under Medicaid and would increase temporarily the federal government's contribution to Medicaid. For workers able to continue their health coverage through COBRA, the bill would subsidize COBRA premiums by 65 percent. The Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office estimate that these two provisions will provide health insurance to more than eight million people. In addition to helping families maintain their health insurance coverage, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act seeks to improve health care quality and its value. This bill would promote Health Information Technology systems, which could help reduce medical errors while lowering administrative costs, and accelerate their adoption and usage among doctors and hospitals. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would also address the struggling economy by putting money back in the pockets of American families, workers, students and businesses through $285 billion worth of tax cuts. Ninety-five percent of working Americans would receive a tax cut through a refundable tax credit of up to $500 per worker that will be quickly distributed by reducing tax withholding from workers' paychecks. It will lower the taxes of more than 16 million families by increasing the child tax credit and expanding the earned income tax credit. This bill includes a number of provisions that will help businesses to create new jobs in this difficult economy. It will allow businesses to improve cash flow by allowing businesses to write off 90 percent of losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against taxes assessed over the previous five years. In addition, it will help businesses expand by extending the increased bonus depreciation for businesses making investments in new plants and equipment in 2009. This legislation will help small businesses by doubling the amount they can deduct on their taxes for capital investments and new equipment. Through this comprehensive approach, we can begin to put the American economy back on the right track. We must approve the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We need to get America back to work and rebuild our economy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On January 22, 1973, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun penned the historic majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade case. He wrote that ``right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'' Justice Blackmun's words confirmed the 7-2 landmark decision that all women have the constitutional right to choose. Roe v. Wade established that reproductive healthcare is a personal matter that should be left to individuals. The question of whether or not to have an abortion is not an easy one, it is one of the most difficult decisions that a woman can face. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, and family may have opinions, the ultimate decision rests solely with her. This is not a decision that should be forced upon a woman by any government. Having the right to choose is an essential right that should be protected, however there is much that can and should to be done to decrease the need for abortion. That is why I have consistently supported comprehensive sexual education in our schools. Our investment in abstinence-only education over the last 8 years has failed in giving our teenagers the medically accurate, life-saving information about birth control and sexually transmitted infections they need to make informed decisions. I also support overturning the ``global gag rule.'' President Bush enacted the ``global gag rule'' 8 years ago today to prohibit international family planning organizations that receive funding from the United States from being able to advocate for choice. The global gag rule also bans foreign non-governmental organizations, NGOs, from being able, using their own funds, to engage in free speech and assembly activities on a woman's right to choose, and also prevented health care providers from counseling the world's poorest women about all their legal health care options. Reversing this policy will improve maternal and child health in developing countries, reduce infant mortality, lead to better diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion. Roe v. Wade marked a drastic change in our national policy on reproductive rights and I urge my colleagues to commemorate the 36th anniversary of this ruling.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I voted yesterday in support of our Nation's children and for passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 2. More than 7.1 million children have health insurance because of the creation, a decade ago, of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. However, these children will lose access to good, affordable health insurance if Congress does not act to reauthorize the SCHIP program by March 31, 2009. Yesterday, the House approved the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, which would expand the SCHIP program to ensure even more children have access to the health care their parents cannot afford or who work in jobs that do not provide health care benefits. The House of Representatives has passed similar legislation twice before to extend and expand SCHIP, only to have those bills vetoed by President Bush. I hope that on the third consideration of this legislation to improve children's health that this bill will be signed into law. The expansion of this program is even more important today as many workers are losing their health insurance and face great economic hardships during the recent recession. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the current unemployment level of 7 percent would increase Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 2.4 million people and an additional 2.6 million people would become uninsured. The number of uninsured will rise higher should the unemployment rates climb even further. This legislation would reduce the size of this uninsured population by expanding SCHIP to include an additional 4 million children who currently have no health insurance. Sending a child to the emergency room is not an alternative to having comprehensive health insurance. Especially at a time when millions of families are facing economic hardships, we must ensure that children have the care they need. This bill would provide parity for mental health for children. I long have fought for mental health parity, and was pleased that last year we could improve mental health coverage for private insurance plans and Medicare. I am encouraged that we have now extended this to the SCHIP program. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 45 million Americans lack health care coverage, including more than 16 percent of New Jersey's residents. Many of these Americans are children, the vast majority of whom come from working families. It is simply unconscionable that here in the United States of America millions of children are uninsured. The reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program presents an historic opportunity to put an end to the morally unacceptable fact that 8.6 million American children live every day without insurance. It is time for Congress to preserve and expand this program that has proven successful at insuring our nation's most vulnerable children. The SCHIP program is strongly supported by our nation's governors who have managed the State-run programs over the past decade and understand that SCHIP allows States to cover low-income children who lack health insurance in families of the working poor. This bill also would provide the tools needed and create incentives for States to reach the millions of children who are eligible but not currently enrolled in the SCHIP program. New Jersey uses its SCHIP funds to run a program called FamilyCare. Our State is a leader in extending FamilyCare eligibility. Currently, 150,000 children and approximately 100,000 low income-parents are enrolled in New Jersey's program. Without SCHIP, all of these residents of New Jersey would again be uninsured. This legislation would allow States like New Jersey to continue to set income eligibility for SCHIP. Because the cost of living is so high in New Jersey, it is important that our State has the flexibility needed to establish realistic eligibility guidelines. Additionally, this bill would allow New Jersey to continue to enroll parents along with their children. According to research by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, one highly effective way of boosting coverage among low-income children is to broaden health insurance to their parents. Currently, New Jersey is one of 11 States to cover low-income parents. Because we are committed to balanced budgets and opposed to deficit spending, this bill pays for this historic commitment to our children with an appropriate increase in the Federal tobacco tax and by imposing restrictions on self-referral to physician-owned hospitals. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, the 61 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax that is included in this bill would result in substantially fewer youth smokers, as every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes would reduce youth smoking by approximately 7 percent. This would improve their health and result in longterm healthcare savings. There are 11 million reasons to vote for this bill, each one a child who will move out of the ranks of the uninsured with the health care provided in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. A measure of a nation's greatness is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. By making health insurance available for 11 million children, we live up to our moral obligation to keep children healthy and we make our society stronger.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Putting aside the gentleman's sense of the ultimate disposition of this legislation, I would ask wouldn't he like to make it as good as possible as we are considering it now and wouldn't he care to reconsider his objection?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Reclaiming my time to talk about the substance, let me ask the Chair the time remaining, please.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. One of the difficulties with the troubled assets is assigning values to them. One way of doing that is through auctions. This amendment encourages--in fact, directs--the Secretary, without using taxpayer funds, to facilitate an auction. It will allow the TARP assets to be valued and should help to liquidate and dispose of those assets in the way that was intended. Now, I should say that this amendment, although approved by the Rules Committee, is also included in its entirety in the manager's amendment as accepted. Modification to Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. HOLT. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment before us in a manner that is before you at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Yes, I can explain. I submitted both of these amendments for committee consideration and for Rules Committee consideration. It was my understanding that they were both included in the manager's amendment, and, in fact, the chairman tells me that it was his intention to include both of them in the manager's amendment. Only one of them was actually included in the manager's amendment. So I'm asking unanimous consent to modify the one amendment that is already in the manager's amendment but also approved for floor consideration to represent the one that was not included in the manager's amendment but should have been.

Mr. HOLT. If the Member who controls the floor would yield to Chairman Frank, I think we can get a better explanation.

Mr. HOLT. That is because I learned only this morning that it was not included in the manager's amendment, as I had understood and been led to believe, and, therefore, I typed it up so that it could be considered on the floor.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the School Building Enhancement Act, legislation that would help schools implement energy saving measures to reduce their energy costs. According to the Department of Energy, DOE schools spent over $8 billion on energy in 2007--$2 billion more than they spent just two years earlier. Sky-rocketing energy costs have forced schools to spend more annually on heating and electricity than they spend on textbooks and computers combined. Energy is the second-highest operating expenditure for schools after personnel costs. Schools across the country are already facing tight budgets; rising energy costs will only worsen their budget situation and could lead to the loss of important school programs. Fortunately, there are ways for schools to offset the soaring price of energy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 30 percent of energy consumed in buildings is used unnecessarily or inefficiently. By understanding where energy is used unwisely and implementing simple changes in the operations and maintenance of school buildings, a school's operating costs can be reduced by 5 to 25 percent. Schools that are seeking even greater long-term savings can retrofit their buildings with more efficient systems and replace old appliances. The $2 billion saved could be used for purchases that directly benefit our nation's students--such as hiring 30,000 new teachers or purchasing 40 million additional textbooks. However, cash-strapped school systems often are unable to find the necessary financial resources to invest in these energy efficient upgrades. The School Building Enhancement Act would assist schools in making these improvements by providing grants to states and local educational agencies through the Department of Education for energy efficiency upgrades. These improvements would need to follow the guidelines of the EnergySmart Schools Program of the Department of Energy or the Energy Star for K-12 School Districts program at the Environmental Protection Agency. If enacted, the School Building Enhancement Act would provide the needed funding for schools in my home state of New Jersey, and throughout the country, to implement energy efficiency measures that would help schools save thousands of dollars annually. Schools that already have implemented energy efficiency measures have succeeded in achieving significant savings. For example, the Summerfield Elementary School in my home state of New Jersey has implemented energy efficiency measures that have reduced their consumption by 32 percent, allowing Summerfield to save $41,000 annually on energy costs. Summerfield is just one of many schools that are being built to use energy smarter and more efficiently. According to the EPA more than 800 schools have been Energy Star certified, saving an average of 40 cents per square foot in operating costs annually. Twenty-five of my colleagues have joined me in introducing this important legislation to help cash-strapped schools achieve significant savings on their energy costs and protect the environment. I urge my colleagues to support the School Building Enhancement Act.