Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act, which institutes a variety of measures to protect the Delaware and other American rivers from future oil spills and environmental disasters and which I am pleased to have voted for. As the longest un-dammed river east of the Mississippi, the Delaware is a crucial part of America's infrastructure, serving as a key route for commercial shipping, a popular area for recreational activity, and a vital water source for hundreds of counties and municipalities on or near its path. In late November 2004, the tanker Athos I, accidentally hit an unmarked, submerged piece of iron pipe on the shore of the Delaware River near Paulsboro, NJ. The metal tore a hole in the ship's single hull, releasing roughly 265,000 gallons of crude oil into the river and soiling over 200 miles of coastline. Hundreds of birds became oil- covered and died; countless fish--including many endangered short-nose sturgeon--were sickened or killed. The Coast Guard estimated the cost of cleanup to be in excess of $200 million--that in addition to revenues lost when shipping routes along the river were forced to close and power plants along the river were forced to shut down. But under current law, the tanker's owners are responsible for less than $50 million of that cost; American taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for the rest. For almost 15 million people--including much of the New York metropolitan area--the Delaware is a primary source of drinking water. Polluting such a valuable resource should be far costlier than it currently is, in order to encourage companies to practice the safest shipping possible. The Delaware River Protection Act would have just that effect. First, the bill increases responsible parties' cleanup liability by nearly ninety percent for single-hulled vessels like the Athos I, and by over forty percent for double-hulled vessels, which are safer and more resistant to hull damage. The bill also requires any person with knowledge of submerged objects in U.S. waters to report those objects to the Coast Guard or be subject to civil and criminal penalties; prior Coast Guard notification of the iron pipe submerged in the Delaware's banks could have prevented the Athos incident entirely. Finally, the bill proposes two programs. The first, established jointly within the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would be devoted to determining the environmental effects of submerged oil, and to developing methods to locate and remove it. The second, the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee, would be devoted solely to recommending ways to improve prevention of--and reaction to--oil spills on the Delaware. In all, this bill makes important strides toward the environmental protection that our planet, our region, and the fifteen million Americans who rely on the Delaware for drinking water need. Preventing future oil spills and related disasters on the Delaware River is a vital and necessary goal. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Delaware River Protection Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the proposed US-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick led the team of U.S. negotiators who concluded what they consider to be a good trade agreement in DR-CAFTA, and President Bush signed it the summer of 2004. This agreement will not take effect, however, until it is formally submitted to the Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, pursuant to the fast-track trade negotiating authority that Congress approved in 2002. Fast-track trade negotiating authority was first approved by Congress when the Trade Act of 1964 was enacted. As a result the Congress cedes much of its power to amend trade agreements negotiated by the President. I voted against giving the President a 5-year extension of fast-track trade negotiating authority in 2002. Fundamentally, I believe Congress ought not cede such open-ended, blanket trade negotiating authority to any President. Nevertheless, the DR-CAFTA agreement has been negotiated by the President's representatives and will come before Congress. International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availabilitly is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-based corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles. I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan, on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable. I am troubled by the DR-CAFTA that the President has signed. The DR- CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have no labor wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom.'' Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the DR-CAFTA when it comes to the floor of the House and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last week, House Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, convened a hearing to investigate the so-called ``Downing Street Memo.'' Because I am disappointed with the continued unwillingness of Congress to exercise an adequate level of oversight over the intelligence operations of the Executive Branch, I was therefore pleased to learn that someone was willing to pose questions that have for too long gone un-asked. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I believe that the Downing Street Memo, which is essentially minutes of a July 2002 meeting of the British Prime Minister and his cabinet, justifies exploring the underlying rationales for the Iraq War. It documents a loyal ally's assertion that the architects of the Iraq war used suspect evidence to support a pre- determined policy. Its authenticity has not been questioned. Such documentation deserves to be probed. Because of prior commitments, I attended this meeting for about 20 minutes. I later learned through news reports that, after I left, one of the witnesses at the hearing, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Analyst Ray McGovern, offered repugnant personal viewpoints. Alleging that the war was the product of a U.S.--Israeli partnership to ``dominate'' the Middle East, Mr. McGovern's statements were insulting, unsubstantiated, and defamatory. There is no justification or excuse for implying that the war in Iraq was the result of any action on the part of the state of Israel, its people, or the American Jewish community. The decision to invade Iraq was the decision of President Bush and a majority of Congress. Ascribing such motives to the pro- Israel community is not simply defamatory--it is anti-Semitic. Mr. McGovern should apologize. Mr. Speaker, I have been one of the more outspoken members of this body regarding the intelligence that this president used to justify using force against Iraq, how the war has been carried out, and the post-war occupation. I reject Mr. McGovern's statements. His remarks only encourage those who seek to blame Israel and Jews in general for all that ails them. His remarks shed no light on the issue. In fact, they undermined the values of community and equality, which all Americans hold dear. Sixty years after the end of the Second World War, it is a shame that one of its most notorious sentiments--anti-Semitism--has yet to be eradicated. Each of us has a role to play in combating anti-Semitism whenever and wherever we see it. As a member of the Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism, I ask each of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to confront anti-Semitism whenever it arises. I hope that Mr. McGovern's offensive and misguided rhetoric does not obscure the purpose of the hearing on the Downing Street Memo. Congress should investigate the extent to which the Bush Administration used questionable evidence to justify a predetermined war. Failure to do so would be an abandonment of our oversight responsibility.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, Americans have long relied on the Pell Grant program to help pay for higher education. For decades, the program has supported students as they strive to reach their potential. Now, at a time when tuition costs are rising significantly every year, the Pell Grant program has become even more important. This year it is projected that 1.3 million students will see their Pell grants reduced, and another 90,000 will become ineligible entirely due to the administration formula tax table changes. I was going to offer an amendment with my colleague Tim Bishop today which would have stopped future formula changes cutting more students. The amendment would have been ruled out of order. Though the Bush Administration's change to the federal student aid formula was subtle, its effect is not. Just as states are raising the- price tags for higher education, the Bush Administration tells students and their families that they must shoulder a greater share of the burden. Due to the fact the Pell grant formulas effect the rest of student aid the Bush student aid reduction will force students and families to pay $3.2 billion more overall for college this year. And these aid cuts come at a time when tuition is rising at double- digit rates. Even without these cuts, students and working families are straining to pay for higher education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a 4-year public university costs an average of $11,354, which is $824 more than last year and $1,775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent each year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey have increased by more than 40 percent over the past 5 years. In some states, the increase is more than 60 percent. Given rising college costs, reducing eligibility for financial aid seems short-sighted at best, and at worst, insensitive and uncompassionate. Five million students rely on these grants to help pay for college. However because of these changes 36 percent of the 5 million students who receive Pell will have their awards reduced. The Pell Grant program has long embodied what government can and should do: serve as a pillar to lean on for individuals working hard and using their talents to achieve their dreams. Unfortunately and inevitably, these cutbacks have priced students out of college, forcing them to postpone their education and put career goals on hold. And those who do go on to college do so only by taking on larger burdens, including private loans that must be repaid starting immediately after graduation. We believe the current course is taking us in the wrong direction. At a time when the country faces international competition and outsourcing, at a time when education has never been more important, Congress should be expanding college opportunity, not shrinking it. More than just an individual accomplishment or a point of pride for a family, college education is a public good. Our economy, culture, and communities benefit from having more college graduates. I ask my colleagues to work with us to ensure that no students see their student aid reduced.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my concern that this bill zeroes out funding for the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) within the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriation Bill. FLAP is currently the only federal program that supports foreign language education at the elementary and secondary school level. It is widely understood that early language education is the key to language proficiency later on. In order to start addressing the pressing need for skilled linguists and other language professionals that currently exist, forty of my colleagues and I sent Chairman Regula and Ranking Member Obey a letter requesting $30 million for this program. In the past, FLAP grants have helped elementary and secondary schools create and maintain high quality language programs in areas such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and French. Our Nation's language capabilities are underdeveloped because we have neglected to provide the language programs that currently exist. An increase in FLAP funding will pay large dividends in the future as new generations of Americans are exposed to foreign languages and cultures at a young age. Currently the demand for language services in the United States is greater than ever before. For reasons such as economic development, cultural growth and national security, Americans are learning that we need to have much better facility with all languages and dialects. I understand that language education is one of the most pressing national security issues facing our Nation today. While the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence agencies have recently turned their attention to the language problem, their approach remains focused on immediate needs. However, programs such as FLAP are critical in addressing the long term problem by increasing interest in, and access to, language education. The House has already gone on record this year in strong support of language education when it unanimously approved H. Res. 122, and established 2005 as the Year of Languages. I believe that an increase in FLAP funding would be an appropriate way to further show Congressional support for language education. As this bill goes to conference I ask my colleagues to join me in demanding funding for foreign language education.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey-Lowey- Leach amendment, which restores the full, previously appropriated level of funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB. As someone who has contributed personally to both NPR and PBS, the committee's scant proposal for CPB funding comes as a supreme disappointment. Public television and radio stations are locally controlled. The primary mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is to enable those local stations to remain independent and free of advertising by providing a guaranteed, content-independent source of funding. For this reason, the Corporation's funding is set 2 years in advance. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues can keep that in mind: the funding that the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment seeks to restore has already been passed. In 2003, I voted along with 241 of my colleagues to appropriate $400 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in fiscal year 2006. That the committee now seeks to override the will of the whole House is simply unfair to the stations and their viewers. Each week, more than 80 million people watch PBS. Without even counting the 30 million who listen to NPR during that same period, that's a minimum of 80 million Americans who ask us each week to support this amendment. They may not leave their family rooms, they may not pick up the phone, but make no mistake: they're voting with their remote controls. Each and every week, they're telling us how they feel. Opponents of CPB funding regularly claim that Federal funding cuts will have no significant effect on public programming, and that public television can easily absorb any funding cut. But look at the facts: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides critical, irreplaceable support to some of public television's most popular programs. Had the proposed funding cuts been enacted for the current year, they would have caused a 20 percent drop in funding for Reading Rainbow. A 20 percent drop in funding for Sesame Street. A 54 percent drop in funding for Mister Rogers. A 27 percent drop in funding for NOVA, and a 27 percent drop in funding for the NewsHour, to which millions turn each night for balanced news coverage. And opponents call that ``no significant effect''? Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress established two public television programs designed to facilitate education and learning: Ready to Learn, and Ready to Teach. Together, these two programs requested a total of $49 million for the coming budget year, which they would use to support educational programming like Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and Clifford the Big Red Dog. Rather than meet their request, the Appropriations Committee chose to rescind all 2006 funding from each of these programs, which we established just 3 years ago. Mr. Chairman, these cuts are unwise. Entire generations of children have grown up watching Big Bird and Snuffleupagus; entire generations have learned to love books while reading along with LeVar Burton; entire generations have been taught to follow their dreams by Mister Fred Rogers and his characters. In an age when more and more children are spending more and more time in front of the television, public TV is one of the very last cuts we can afford to make. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, and for all the reasons above, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment, and to restore full funding to the CPB.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. Just as everyone here today, I view the American flag with a special reverence, and I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol. At the start of the town hall meeting I host in my district, I always try take a few moments to lead those in attendance in the pledge of allegiance. I think this is an important and valuable portion of my town hall meetings when I can express my support for and share my deep respect of both our flag and our system of government-which our flag represents. What makes America a great and free society, is our system of government and our Constitution. Our Constitution is the document that provides the basis for our great country. It is our Nation's operating manual. For over two centuries, the Constitution--the greatest invention of humans--has allowed our diverse people to live together, to balance our various interests, and to thrive. It has provided each citizen with broad, basic rights. The Constitution doesn't fly majestically in front of government buildings. We do not pledge allegiance to it each day. Yet, it is the source of our freedom. It tells us that we are free to assemble peacefully. We are free to petition our government; we are free to worship without interference; free from unlawful search and seizure; and free to choose our leaders. It secures the right and means of voting. It is these freedoms that define what it is to be an American. As a Member of Congress, I took an oath of office in which I swore ``. . . that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' In fact, new citizens to our great nation make a similar pledge when they are sworn in as U.S. citizens. It is important to note that I am entrusted with the obligation to defend the Constitution, not the symbols, of our Nation. The Founders knew that it is our system of government that is essential to who were are as a people and what we stand for. While I deeply value the flag as a symbol of our Nation, what we need to ensure is that we protect the values and ideals of our country as contained within the Constitution. In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times. With the exception of the Eighteenth Amendment, which was later repealed, these amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual freedoms and the specific mechanisms that allow our self-government to function. This Resolution before us today would not perfect the operation of our self-government. It would not expand our citizen's rights. Proponents of this constitutional amendment argue that we need to respect our flag. I believe that the vast majority of Americans already respect our flag, and I am unaware of a flag burning epidemic in America. To me this Resolution is a solution in search of a problem. Let me be clear, it is wrong to desecrate or defile an American flag in any way. But making it unconstitutional will not prevent these incidents from occurring. What we should do, as a government and as American citizens, is promote civic values and a greater understanding of our democracy. We should encourage civic education in our schools and communities. People who value and understand the ideals of our country will also understand and value the symbols of our great Nation. The issue before us is whether our Constitution should be amended so that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who show disrespect for the flag. To quote James Madison, is this a ``great and extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional amendment? The answer is no; this is not such an occasion. I oppose this amendment because I believe that while attempting to preserve the symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, it actually would harm the values and ideals that created of these freedoms.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of St. Dorothea's Catholic Church in Eatontown, New Jersey. The one hundred year history of St. Dorothea's Church is rich in stories of individuals' commitment to community service and helping others. The congregation was first established on October 1, 1905 in the small Quaker village of Eatontown made up of farmers, merchants and some professionals. Before enough funds were secured to build an actual structure, Mass was celebrated in the private homes of the few Catholics in the neighborhood. The first recorded Mass was celebrated in the ``Buttonwood Cottage'' on Main Street, on October 10, 1905. Over the years, many pastors have served the community of St. Dorothea's. Rev. James B. Coyle, who served the parish from 1960-1990, oversaw the construction of a new, modern church in 1965, which offered more space for worship as well as youth and adult, educational programming and community activities. With the creation of the new building, St. Dorothea's has provided to the local residents of Eatontown and the surrounding communities in Monmouth County. In recent years, Rev. G. Williams Evans has developed greater outreach and community service for St. Dorothea's. Some of the many programs that he has established are ministries to several segments of the population, the Knights of Columbus chapter and a ``Prayer Garden'' located on the grounds of the church. Currently, Rev. Evans is supervising the publication of St. Dorothea's one hundred year history, written by parishioner Gordon Bishop. Some of the many community outreach programs that St. Dorothea's runs are religious education classes, Vacation Bible School for young parishioners as well as a youth group that provides structured activities and events for teenagers. Also groups of volunteers provide pastoral and hospital care for the community's sick and elderly, giving spiritual care to those in need. The parish continues to organize important events for fundraising and special occasions, and soon is commemorating its centennial anniversary with a series of events, including a picnic, parish trip, concert, mass, and dinner. Mr. Speaker, I join Eatontown Mayor Gerald Tarantolo and many others in recognizing St. Dorothea's Church for its rich one hundred year history and service to the people of Eatontown. From the hard work of the original 18 parishioners in 1905 to the dedication of the over 1770 parishioners today, St. Dorothea's has provided an outstanding ministry to the people of Central New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 160, a resolution recognizing the importance of the Juneteenth anniversary celebrations held nationwide on June 19. On that date 140 years ago, Union forces arrived at Galveston, Texas, bringing news of the Confederate surrender and enforcing, finally, President Abraham Lincoln's two-and-a-half-year old emancipation of the slaves. The ensuing celebration quickly became an annual event, spreading west to Seattle, north to Minneapolis, and east to Portland, Maine. In my own state of New Jersey, Juneteenth is celebrated at churches, community centers, and family picnics across the state. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 160, which recognizes the significance of the Juneteenth anniversary and proclaims the sense of Congress that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future. I rise to honor the celebration, and to honor the myriad contributions that African- Americans have made to American society in the years before and since. As inventors, teachers, firemen, soldiers, doctors, and statesmen, African-Americans have honored this country with their service and dedication. The longevity of the Juneteenth celebration is an enduring testament to the virtue of celebrating diversity. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I must also rise today to recognize the struggle that still faces us. Juneteenth evokes in all of us thoughts of a dark chapter in our Nation's history, and reinforces that which we already know: the struggle for equality is far from over. The joyous celebration of the emancipation of the slaves of Galveston, Texas, serves to remind us all of the need to remain committed to the justice, and freedom. Today, Juneteenth is the longest-running celebration of the end of slavery in the United States. Its durability alone illustrates its significance. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and for all the reasons above, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 160.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I also thank the chairman and the staff for putting together in a congenial atmosphere a good bill. There are some good features to the bill, and I am pleased that it gives the new Director of National Intelligence the authority and resources necessary for him to succeed, and I am also satisfied that the bill gives the intelligence community 100 percent of the funds that it needs for counterterrorism programs. I am encouraged by the bill's emphasis on human intelligence and the recommendation to create a multilevel security clearance system that will allow the intelligence community to harness the power of America's diversity. More must be done, however, to encourage the use of open source, or public, information. Last year we gave the intelligence community an urging to increase its collection, analysis, and use of open-source information. And I look forward to working with the DNI to move these efforts forward. I am also pleased that the bill advances our foreign language training efforts within the intelligence community, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to strengthen our language capabilities throughout the Federal Government. I do want to express serious concern about a couple of matters. First, the administration's recommendations to close or realign military bases has the potential to disrupt vital intelligence expertise. Bases like Fort Monmouth, in my home State of New Jersey, play critical intelligence roles that have not been taken fully into account in the process. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for urging the Director of National Intelligence to evaluate the effect of base realignment on our Nation's intelligence capabilities, and I will include their letter at this point in the Record. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, May 26, 2005. Ambassador John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Ambassador Negroponte: During the markup of the Fiscal Year 2006 Intelligence Authorization bill, Members of the Committee raised questions about the potential impacts that the Defense Department's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission recommendations could have on the nation's intelligence capabilities. The Members believe strongly that such impacts should be factored into the final decision process. Many intelligence programs, for example, are dependent on subject matter experts made up of military personnel, government civilians, and contractors. These people form the analytic depth and breadth of the Intelligence Community, as well as much of the core of its engineering, scientific and technical expertise. Based on past BRAC experiences, we can logically assume that many of the intelligence personnel that would be affected by the latest recommendations could refuse to uproot their families and relocate. The Intelligence Community depends on this intellectual capital, and we should well understand how the resulting loss of these people would affect intelligence activities and, thereby, the nation's security. The BRAC recommendations could affect the nation's intelligence capabilities in many other ways. Accordingly, we want to ensure that these intelligence-related impacts be considered in the deliberations that result in the final BRAC decisions. We believe that your position as the Director of National Intelligence puts you in a unique position to best understand and, accordingly, respond to these potential impacts. Therefore, we ask you to evaluate the affects of base realignment and closure on the nation's intelligence capabilities. We further ask that you provide the Committee with the results of your review no later than the date that the President provides his final approval and certification of the BRAC report to the Congress. Sincerely, Peter Hoekstra, Chairman. Jane Harman, Ranking Member. Madam Speaker, I also express my deep disappointment with the decision of the Committee on Rules to disallow a moderate and reasonable amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that would have mandated the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate how the executive branch has handled detainees. We need that investigation, and we can do some of it within the committee; but we do need a public 9/11-style commission. Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for those fine comments. There are some words running through the discussion tonight that we hear over and over again: fairness, dignity, patience, caution, incorruptibility, judiciousness, courtesy, strength, a sense of duty. Those are some of the words that I think can describe Peter Rodino who gave so much to this country over the years and from whom we can draw so much even today. Now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words from the perspective of the Committee on the Judiciary and joining us in paying tribute to the Honorable Peter Rodino. Representative Rodino served the United States and the people of New Jersey faithfully, and that is a good word to use, for 40 years, and we mourn his loss and celebrate his contributions, and try to extract lessons for today for ourselves, for America, from his service. He was relatively unknown to the public outside of New Jersey before the Watergate hearings, which led to the resignation of the President. His professionalism and fairness and dedication to the rule of law characterized what he did, and he was able to demonstrate throughout those hearings the characteristics that thrust him into the kind of prominence that he neither sought nor coveted. The genius of the American government, as created by our founders over 200 years ago, is that our government is self-correcting. It is a self-correcting system, and Peter Rodino, who carried a copy of the Constitution with him every day of his professional life, understood that. At a critical time, he helped that ingenious machine, that ingenious mechanism work. It does not work by itself. It works if we make it work. It works if we believe it works. Peter Rodino served as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee during one of the most disappointing and politically divisive times in our history. As we have heard tonight, he was tasked with the unenviable job of officiating the Nation's second impeachment hearings of a sitting U.S. President. It was not obvious that he would get that job. Most observers expected these potentially vitriolic proceedings to be characterized by partisanship and animosity and grandstanding. Peter Rodino did none of that. He would have none of that. He brought an honest and workmanlike demeanor to this difficult job. As the son of a workman, maybe workmanlike is the right word here. Peter Rodino led a bipartisan group of lawmakers to approve three articles of impeachment in July of 1974, and the conduct of his Judiciary Committee really was a silver lining in a dark cloud. Tonight, we have heard words like ``unlikely'' or ``improbable'' and ``unexpected'' hero. Well, maybe a better word is ``untested'' in the public forum, but we should not forget what sort of person this was. He had enlisted in the Army, served in north Africa and received a rare battlefield promotion to captain. He was no slouch. Earning the Bronze Star, he came home and practiced law and then ran for Congress. It is important to understand that he did not just suddenly rise to the occasion. He had studied and he had thought, but even he recognized that when he was given the gavel for the impeachment hearings, he was not yet ready. He said he had not even questioned a witness in direct examination in 30 years because he had been serving in the legislature, but typical of his workmanlike manner, he studied. He read this enormous Watergate record. It was already enormous by that time. Three times over he read the history of the impeachment and the trial of President Andrew Johnson. He studied the writings of the political philosophers, all this in preparation for the impeachment hearings. In fact, he worked himself to exhaustion. He hired a staff of 105, including some bright young lawyers, and he began to steel himself so that when the pressure came to modify the hearings, to accelerate the pace, to show a little partisanship, he never backed down. He knew where he was, and it is, I think rightly, what he will be remembered for best. His political legacy extends far beyond that tumultuous time. He worked tirelessly and successfully to defeat ill-advised constitutional amendments that would have criminalized abortions or disallowed organized school prayer or prohibited school integration through busing. He fought tirelessly for civil rights for all Americans. He was one of the main congressional sponsors of civil rights legislation and principal author of fair employment practices legislation. He was instrumental in extending the Voting Rights Act. The impact of this legislation that he participated in is enormous. We should not forget his representation, the representation he brought to the people of New Jersey's 10th District. Despite evolving demographics and four decades of social change, it was a tough time in Newark. Peter Rodino's dedication to his constituents never faltered. It was not by accident that he was reelected through 40 years. Since his death, Peter Rodino has received some of the attention he deserves. We are tonight remembering the way he guided Congress and the country through a tremendously difficult period in our political history. Even until recently, into his nineties, he remained active at Seton Hall, looking after the interests of students and, yes, the citizens of New Jersey. We all frequently got phone calls from him suggesting this or that that would be beneficial to the people. Tonight especially I think serves as a reminder that our self- correcting system of government works because Americans believe it does and because Americans rise to the occasion, each occasion. We may think that Peter Rodino lived in a different era and his life has little relevance, his service has little relevance for us today, but perhaps the lesson is that we, that all Americans, are called or will be called to do our civic duty. Peter Rodino prepared himself for that, accepted the duty unflinchingly, distinguished himself, distinguished this body, distinguished America through his service. It is right that we should recognize him tonight. To close, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), my colleague who put this together for this evening and to whom we also owe gratitude.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for putting in context much of Peter Rodino's life and interpreting the message for us even today. You know, I am told that Chairman Rodino prayed that the Judiciary Committee could exhonorate Nixon, but he discovered that the evidence allowed nothing other than the articles of impeachment. He was not vindictive. He was dutiful. And it was important that he did not go into this with a blood thirst, but with actually a deep love for the country. I now would like to recognize another of my colleagues from New Jersey, from a neighboring district, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for making the arrangements for this evening and for everyone who has joined in this testimonial to the work of Peter Rodino. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who has served on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for those good words. Peter Rodino offered many of us kindness and generous, wise counsel, and that is why we are here tonight, not just celebrating one aspect of his career, but the totality of this career of this great public servant. And I would now like to recognize my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill appropriated $408.9 billion for the Department of Defense. This included a $45.3 billion appropriation for the ongoing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am pleased that this bill helps keep our faith to our service members by providing them with a much needed pay increase. It authorizes a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for our active duty and reserve troops. This is the seventh consecutive year that Congress has provided a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. This will help to reduce the pay gap between average military and civilian pay. I am glad that this bill does not fund the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. While I understand the threat that certain underground bunkers or facilities may pose, creating these weapons would only serve to undermine our global counterproliferation goals. Moving forward with a new generation of nuclear weapons would send a simple message to Iran, North Korea and other emerging or potential nuclear-armed states: ``We want new nuclear weapons, and you should, too.'' I am glad this program has thus far been rejected and I will continue to oppose any efforts to fund it. The bill also provides $416 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, to help prevent the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union from falling into the hands of terrorists or others who would wish to do us harm. I am pleased that we are providing more than we did last year for this important program, but we have a lot of work remaining to do, and I regret that we did not provide more money to help secure, dismantle and eliminate WMD's and WMD facilities. I am glad that after three years, we have finally started to fund the ongoing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal legislative process. I believe we should not be funding military operations that are foreseen through emergency supplemental appropriations, as we have done in the past. We have soldiers in the field, and we know that we'll be continuing military operations against al Qaeda and its surrogates for the foreseeable future. The bridge funding provided for Iraq and Afghanistan in this bill recognizes this. I am, however, concerned by some of the provisions contained within this bill. First, I am deeply troubled that this bill again contains funding for missile defense. Under this bill, $7.6 billion would be appropriated for ballistic-missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency. The total includes funding for the initial deployment of a national missile-defense system based in Alaska and California. Not only has this program continually failed to work even under less-than- real-world test scenarios, but it is a dangerous system that could jeopardize our national security. While I support providing our troops in harm's way with the best equipment possible, I am troubled by the ever increasing human toll the Iraq war is inflicting on our nation. Last week, some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle introduced legislation calling for the withdrawal of American forces, and a clear majority of Americans understand that things are badly off track in Iraq. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the centerpiece of the Bush administration's exit strategy for Iraq--the program to train and equip the Iraqi security forces to take over the domestic security mission from our troops--is in grave peril.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as the middle class continues to feel squeezed by an economy that is creating few jobs, it is time that President Bush and the Republicans here in Congress admit that their economic policies are not working. Democrats in the House have a plan that will lift the incomes of working families and bring the unemployment rate down. Instead, Republicans are passing legislation to meet the needs of their corporate special interest friends and the wealthy, not ordinary, Americans. Legislative choices show values. The fact is, Democrats, historically, have a better record of creating jobs. After 5 years in office, President Bush has yet to create his first net job. At this same period, President Clinton had created 11.9 million jobs. Oh, you can say the economy is fine, but honesty requires that you admit it is fine for the very wealthy. You can blame people's problems on economic cycles or terrorist attacks or foreign influences, but excuses are not jobs. The Democratic approach works and has worked historically.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Science, State Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, and to voice my specific concerns about the funding level for the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program. I was deeply concerned when President Bush earlier this year proposed gutting State and local law enforcement assistance grants by $1.4 billion in his fiscal year 2006 budget--a 46 percent cut from last year. While the Appropriations Committee restored $1 billion from those proposed cuts, the fiscal year 2006 Science, State Justice, Commerce appropriations bill before us today still cuts these grants by $400,000 from last year's funding levels. That is why I support Ranking Member Obey's amendment. This amendment would provide an additional $410 million for State and local law enforcement, including COPS grants, and restore them to the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. To do this, Representative Obey reduces the size of the tax cut for millionaires by only $2,053. These millionaires will still get a $138,816 tax rebate. That is all we need to do to restore these cuts. That small tax cut repeal would fully fund these important programs at last year's levels and help keep our streets safe. That is a tradeoff that is worth making, and one, I would suggest, that even the top of all taxpayers would support. Concerning the COPS program, this bill allocates only $520 million for it. Again, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee has restored a part of the destructive cuts that the President originally proposed. But we should be doing more. The COPS program has been remarkably successful over the last 10 years. According to the Department of Justice, every $1 we spend on COPS grants contributes to a decline of 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents. Yet rather than increasing funding for this effective and important program, this bill actually would cut $80 million from the COPS program. This is the wrong thing to do. It is the additional police officers that the COPS program helps local towns and cities hire, who are on the front lines of reducing crime and also protecting our homeland. The COPS program has provided law enforcement agencies in my district and across the Nation with critical funding to fight and prevent crime. In my district, communities in Hunterdon, Monmouth, Mercer, Middlesex, and Somerset counties have received more millions of dollars in funding to help put additional police officers on the street. In 2004 alone, four towns in my district--Lawrence Township, Monroe Township, Spotswood Borough, and West Windsor Township--received almost $380,000 to fund various law enforcement programs. This money helped Monroe Township hire three additional police officers, and helped upgrade the law enforcement technology of Spotswood and West Windsor. Overall in 2004, New Jersey communities received COPS grants totaling $9.5 million and were able to hire 40 additional police officers. That is 40 cops on the beat who would not have been there without this important Federal program. Since 1994, the COPS program has helped fund 4,806 additional officers in New Jersey alone. This has made a big difference for the local towns and communities in New Jersey. The creation of the COPS program was a breakthrough in law enforcement. By funding additional officers, critical technologies, and valuable training, COPS has been a catalyst for the revolutionary shift to community policing. But too many police departments are experiencing increases in the troubling indicators of violent crimes. At a time when we are asking our cops to do more to reduce crime and protect our homeland from potential terrorist related threats, we are giving them less funding to do so. Just look at the largest 44 metropolitan police departments. Of them 27, yes 27, have actually been forced to reduce the size of their police departments. That means that there are less police officers on the beat and more crime on the street. COPS and community policing have put us on the right track. Crime is at its lowest levels in more than a quarter of a century. The police chiefs and sheriffs in my district consistently tell me that we could have never achieved this much without the additional officers and technology funded under the COPS program. I just do not understand why we are not supporting this effective program appropriately. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to give up the progress we have achieved in crime reduction over the last 10 years. The COPS program has been vital to our local communities. Our police departments can only do so much with the resources they are given. We should do everything we can to increase, not cut, the funding of the COPS program. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the reinstatement of funding for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program. The 7(a) program provides crucial support for small businesses around the country, and funding should be restored immediately. Central New Jersey has always worked hard to strengthen its position as a national leader in technological and economic innovation. For decades, the state's small businesses have led this charge, escorting communities toward independence and inspiration. Without consistent governmental support, though, small businesses will falter and stagnate. And without consistent small business support, local communities and economies will suffer. We owe it to the state's small businesses to restore funding to the SBA's exceptional 7(a) program. Consider that one new job is created for every $33,000 that SBA's 7(a) program guarantees. And consider that in just the past decade, SBA has approved over four hundred thousand loans, for more than $90 billion. You can do the math: that's a total of 2.7 million new jobs in just the last ten years. But with the lack of appropriations in FY2005, the average origination fees on small business loans doubled, creating between $1,500 and $3,000 in new costs for the average small business owner. The inevitable result is less small business access to capital, less expansion, less hiring, and less economic development. In the past decades, we've all seen that many of the country's strongest local economies are sprouting in areas famous worldwide for their technological prowess: California's Silicon Valley; North Carolina's Research Triangle; Boston's Route 128 Corridor. Central New Jersey's growing high-technology community--Einstein's Alley--belongs squarely on that list. Establishing a center of technological innovation in central New Jersey will guarantee New Jersey's continued future as one of the greatest states in the Union. Without support from the state's small businesses, though, such a technological center could never evolve. Strengthening New Jersey's economy and reinforcing its role as an innovation leader will benefit all New Jersey residents. A research- based economy will require regional improvements in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, which will help reduce traffic and produce more efficient transportation options for us all. A research- based economy will require a larger tax base, which will drive down individual tax rates. And a research-based economy will demand quality schools and livable communities, in order to attract the best and the brightest entrepreneurs and employees to our region. Central New Jersey has long lived and thrived on the frontier of scientific and technological innovation. Einstein's Alley will be home to vibrant communities, cutting-edge companies, and productive workers whose unique assets and shared vision attract new, innovative industries and create many more good jobs to add to what we already have. None of that will be possible, however, without extensive small business support. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge every Member of this body to vote to restore the SBA's 7(a) program to its FY2004 funding level.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about H. Res. 27. H. Res. 27 would withdrawal the United States from participation in the World Trade Organization. I did not support a similar resolution five years ago, and I do not support this resolution today, International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. We live in a world today where more people can afford ever cheaper goods. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availability is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. I want to make sure the United States not only exports our-world class agriculture, but also our respect for the natural environment and enforceable labor laws. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. That is why we must use the WTO to address these labor and environmental concerns. But if we walk away from the WTO, we won't be able to address any of these issues, Where else can we give voice to issues of child labor or environmentally destructive practices of some industries? The WTO--imperfect as it may be--is the forum that we, along with the other members of the international community, established to enforce trade rules and more importantly allow for an open dialogue on the trade issues that concern us. We need to realize that even if there are legitimate problems with the WTO, and I agree that some exist, the solution is not to unilaterally withdraw from the WTO. Withdrawing from the WTO would not help to solve any of these problems. Not one. We cannot stop trade, and we cannot end the global economy. What we can do is work within the World Trade Organization to address these concerns. We should not allow any others to dictate to us about what is in our national interest, but we must recognize that we cannot accomplish our national goals in isolation from the rest of the world. We can only work to protect American workers from anticompetitive practices of foreign countries from within the WTO, not by sitting on the sidelines. We should be working with our trade partners and with the WTO to enforce our existing trade rules. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union address on February 27, 2001, President George W. Bush stood in these very chambers and correctly stated, ``No senior in America should have to choose between buying food and buying prescriptions.'' Unfortunately, two years later, Congress passed a bill that did not solve that problem. The Medicare Modernization Act fails to protect the eligibility of low-income seniors for other Federal assistance programs. The statute mandates that use of the transitional discount drug cards will not affect eligibility for Federal assistance programs, like food stamps. However, such protection is not extended to the permanent prescription drug benefit, which will be fully implemented on January 1, 2006. On May 4, 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified potential beneficiaries of the Medicare low-income subsidy that they may qualify for extra help paying prescription costs. However, this potential extra help comes with a caveat: If you qualify for extra help, your food stamps may decline. Recipients of the minimum food stamp benefit will see their benefits end. It is unconscionable to offer a ``low-income subsidy'' that is contingent on beneficiaries forgoing another necessary commodity. The lowest income seniors should not have to choose between getting help with their expenses for prescription drugs or food. Today, I introduced H.R. 2746, legislation that would fix this problem with the Medicare Modernization Act. It is a simple correction that extends to the permanent drug benefit the same protection for Federal assistance program eligibility provided in the transitional drug benefit. I encourage Members to support this bill. Congress and the Bush Administration have repeatedly affirmed that low-income seniors should not have to choose between food and prescription drugs. Our actions as a body have not lived up to that commitment. Congress should act quickly to fix this flaw in the Medicare Modernization Act so that the most vulnerable among us are not faced with an impossible choice.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding manifestations of anti-Semitism by United Nations member states and urges action against anti-Semitism by United Nations officials, United Nations member states, and the Government of the United States. As we commemorate the invasion of Normandy this week, it is important to remember that the evil the world was fighting then persists today. Recent accounts of anti-Semitic assaults are reminiscent of those encountered before and during World War II. In the suburbs of Antwerp, Belgium, four youths were assaulted on their way home from their Jewish school by a group of men yelling anti-Semitic insults. One of the students was stabbed and seriously injured. In Toulon, France a synagogue and a community center were set on fire. In Dusseldorf, Germany, an ancient Jewish cemetery was desecrated with swastikas and SS symbols. In the United Kingdom, a Jewish woman was beaten severely by three of her neighbors because her mail was written in Hebrew, and they suspected her of being Israeli. The United Nations and the international community must act swiftly and address this immediate threat. The United Nations and world leaders must shake themselves out of indifference and rise above political considerations that have blinded them to the magnitude of rising anti- Semitic assaults. The international community must remember its commitment to prevent a recurrence of horrors the world witnessed 60 years ago and take meaningful actions to combat this rise in anti- Semitism. In the last few years, the United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan have begun to formally recognize and address this rise in anti- Semitism. Just last year, the United Nations sponsored a conference on anti-Semitism and for the first time the United Nations General Assembly's Third Committee adopted a resolution that condemns anti- Semitism. Although these recent actions by the United Nations are positive steps, I believe that the United Nations must do more to combat this evil. The United Nations should first begin within its own organization and end the practice of tolerating hateful rhetoric. The United Nations must go further in condemning member nations and United Nations officials that use anti-Semitic language. Additionally, the United Nations should acknowledge the detrimental effects of anti-Israel resolutions and work towards reducing their frequency. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and to remain committed to combating the evil of anti-Semitism.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to elaborate very briefly on the preceding remarks. We are talking about a time when men and women are risking their lives in the field, facing roadside bombs and mortar fire from insurgents. They need help and support from back here in the United States, from our bases, from places such as, as my colleague from New Jersey was talking about, Fort Monmouth, for example. We are not looking so much for the data on what is the implication of base closing and realignment on local economies. We are looking for the data on how the Pentagon intends to provide for the needs of the men and women in the field today, tomorrow and next year, how they will make up for any loss of capability that results from realignment and transfer of personnel. In order to have a conscientious evaluation of what is being proposed here, we need the data. It is as simple as that. I applaud the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for offering this amendment and demanding that we get the information that we need to do our job.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in support of it. We could go through a list of all of the problems that will be created, but let me just paint a picture here. At Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, there are really the best people in the world, mostly civilians, engineers, scientists, procurement specialists, providing communications, surveillance, tracking friendly forces and unfriendly forces, providing equipment, services, software that men and women in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan need and use every day. Thousands of jobs will be sent elsewhere. Now picture this: A commander in Iraq places an emergency call back to the U.S. The insurgents have changed the electronics in the roadside bombs, the IED devices, and they need new electronics to detect and disarm them. The reply, ``I am sorry, that guy does not work here anymore. We are in the middle of realignment and we have not hired his replacement yet.'' Repeated 5,000 times, ``That guy does not work here anymore,'' that is what is at stake here. The gentleman from Arkansas says there is never a good time, there are no bad bases; this is a terrible time. I can talk about the economic impact of moving jobs away from Fort Monmouth or to some other place. That is not the point. There are soldiers in the field. We are to look after their safety and effectiveness. The Secretary of the Army himself said before the BRAC Commission this past week that they have concerns whether those civilians, those experts with security clearance, with advanced degrees, with specialties, will make the move. How many years of reduced capability can we tolerate while we have men and women in the field? This is a terrible time to proceed. Let us admit that we have gotten off on the wrong track, slow it down and look after the interests of the people in the field.