Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2432. Like so many other bills that have come the House floor recently, this one has a good title that belies its real substance. The paperwork and regulatory burdens on businesses could certainly use improvement, but this bill is actually an underhanded way to weaken so many important regulations that protect American citizens by giving us clean air, clean water, protected public lands, and safe workplaces. It is ironic that, even as we operate under one of the most industry- friendly administrations in recent history, the paperwork burden on the average American businessman has actually gone up. In fiscal year 2003, total government paperwork reached an estimated 8.1 billion hours. According to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the paperwork burden rose a record 570 million hours in fiscal year 2002 and another 72 million hours in fiscal year 2003. So even as the Bush administration and the House leadership dole out special interest goodies to oil and gas companies, HMOs, and many others, the paperwork burden for businesses is going up. The bill we have in front of us will not relieve that burden or do anything to undo the sharp increase in paperwork that we have seen from this White House. Instead, it weakens the process of developing federal regulations that protect the health and safety of Americans and our natural environment. It is also ironic that the House leadership has chosen to attack environmental regulations as imposing undue burdens on businesses when our laws and regulations still do not fully account for externalities like pollution. Polluting industries may decry the costs of burdensome government regulations, but it is average citizens who pay the real price when they breathe dirty air and drink polluted water. Some reports have concluded that my home state of New Jersey has the worst air quality in the nation. So it is hard for me, and for my constituents, to tolerate the cries of the power industries when their pollution leads to the premature deaths of so many New Jerseyans. I am outraged when the Bush administration insists on rewriting environmental regulations to pad the profits of polluters and ignores the human costs of pollution. There is a real danger with the details in this legislation, especially concerning environmental and health regulations. The bill directs OMB to have every federal agency provide an annual report estimating the total costs and benefits of regulations and paperwork pertaining to that agency. So the agency measures the costs, say, of installing pollution controls on a power plant and filling out the relevant paperwork. When it comes to measuring the benefits of a given pollution control regulation, however, are we going to include the value of premature deaths avoided and reduced asthma rates? I sincerely doubt that most federal agencies are going to be inclined, or even be able, to estimate such external benefits. As a research scientist. I am also concerned that the bill does not require the cost-benefit analyses to be done using rigorous scientific analysis. If we want to seriously look at the real costs and benefits of our regulations, we need to use scientific methods, or we risk using complete speculation. This Administration has already undermined and ignored science numerous times--let's not give them another opportunity. I understand the burden that many businesses, especially small businesses, face in filling out government paperwork. This bill, however, is more about coming up with excuses to undermine vital health, safety, and environmental regulations than about relieving the evergrowing paperwork burden.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of making permanent the 10% tax bracket for low-income families. I am supporting the Tanner substitute because it, unlike the underlying bill, is paid for and does not drive our country deeper into debt. The Tanner substitute, like H.R. 4275, makes permanent the change in our lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%, and exempts from taxation the first $7,000 for single taxpayers and $14,000 for married couples. The Tanner substitute, however, requires that the funds needed to pay the tax cut do not come from Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Passing the Tanner substitute would help low-income families protect Social Security and Medicare while also helping eliminate the need to borrow from foreign banks to fund the federal government. Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is the largest in history. Americans now collectively owe more than $7 trillion. That is $24,304 for every man, woman, and child. We have borrowed an additional $280 billion so far this year. The Majority would now like to borrow another $218 billion with the passage of this bill. Here we have another tax cut that is not being paid for, even as the Bush Administration and the leadership of this Congress spend more than the American government has ever spent on homeland security and on all the other expenses of running the government--especially the huge costs of the war in, and occupation of, Iraq. The resultant borrowing places the burden of repaying our debts on our children. I want the people of this country to realize that, right now, we owe collectively, in hard money, about $4 trillion to foreign countries. We owe Japan $607 billion; China (including Hong Kong) $205 billion; the U.K. $137 billion; Taiwan, $50 billion; Germany, $45 billion; OPEC countries, $43 billion; Switzerland, $41 billion; Korea, $37 billion; Mexico, $32 billion; Luxembourg, $26 billion; Canada, $25 billion--the list goes on and on. More tax cuts without offsets will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now create large debt and will create high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital. The President is pretending that we can have war without sacrifice. Eventually, someone has to pay. I believe Chairman Greenspan's recent comments are appropriate: ``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free lunch has still to be invented.'' Now, we, all of us Americans, have to pay interest on the debt. We are literally squandering the wealth of this country by not paying for our tax cuts. The underlying bill is a good idea--keeping the lowest tax bracket at 10% helps all taxpayers equally. Unfortunately, by not paying for the tax cut, we are contributing to a far greater problem-- the breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility that is going on here in this town.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2729, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act. The bill expands the size of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which hears disputes between OSHA and employers, from three to five members, and permits the President to extend the term of a commission member until the Senate confirms a successor. This is a transparent effort to stack the Commission with two new members appointed by the Bush administration. There has been no demonstrated need to increase the Commission from three to five members. The Commission has had three members since it was established in 1970. Proponents of this bill argue that the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has five members. The responsibilities of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission responsibilities, however, are not as broad as those of the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. For example, unlike the mine safety panel, the Occupational Safety and Health Act Commission does not have the responsibility to resolve whistle-blower complaints. Further, since the bill does not change the statutory definition that two members constitute a quorum, expanding the membership to five would mean that a minority of the commission would constitute a quorum-- allowing the two members appointed by the Bush administration to make unilateral decisions. Finally, the bill permits members to continue to serve until a new member is confirmed, which may result in an individual serving for years without being subject to reappointment and confirmation, encourages filibusters, and diminishes the incentive to develop consensus between labor and management and Republicans and Democrats with regard to Commission appointments. Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons I must ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. I hope that in the future the majority leadership will help America's workers with legislation that will increase the minimum wage and protecting overtime rights and not undermine those protections. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728. The bill amends the section 10(a) and (b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide that an employer who has failed to contest a citation and proposed penalty (section 10(a)) or has failed to contest a notification of failure to correct a violation (section 10(b)) in a timely manner (within 15 working days of receiving the notice) may still contest the citation (or failure to correct notice) if the failure to contest in a timely manner was due to a ``mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.'' The bill's authors have used the title ``Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act.'' Once again, they have provided that you can name a bill anything you want, regardless of what it actually does. That is why it is critical to look at what is in the bill and not just the title--it covers more than just small businesses. In fact, H.R. 2728 applies equally to all employers regardless of size. However, because small businesses often get more sympathy, the bill's authors used the title to mischaracterize the substance of the legislation. One of the principal purposes of the OSH Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions'' and to encourage the prompt abatement of safety and health hazards. The timeframes in the OSH Act are intended to ensure that hazards are redressed in a timely manner. H.R. 2728 creates an exemption to the act's timeframes on the basis of one case. The bill seeks to overturn the 2002 decision of the Second Circuit in Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. However, to date no other circuit has ruled similarly and Le Frois Builders is in direct conflict with a Third Circuit decision. Indeed, it is the position of the Occupational Safety and Review Commission that it may grant an excusable neglect waiver in any circuit except the second. The bill amends subsection 10(a) and (b) to afford an excusable neglect remedy to an employer who fails to contest an OSHA citation in a timely manner or who fails to timely challenge an allegation that he or she has failed to correct a hazard within the abatement period. Not surprisingly, H.R. 2728 does not amend subsection 10(c), which affords workers the right to challenge the abatement period. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose a bill that has been given a deceptive title. This legislation will not help small business but instead will hurt employees. What we really should be passing is legislation that will empower small business by increasing funding for education and training programs to help workers gain the job skills that small business is looking for and that will help America remain competitive.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time; and I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730 and also in opposition to H.R. 2728, in opposition to H.R. 2729, and in opposition to H.R. 2731, which we will be considering shortly. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2730 would grant deference to the commission, not OSHA, in interpreting questions of law. Now, this, as in this collection of the other three bills, only serves to weaken the protection of workers. OSHA really is a proud chapter in American history, and we are pleased that a prominent New Jerseyan, Senator Harrison Williams, had a large role in writing this. There are millions of Americans who have their limbs, their eyesight, even their lives because of OSHA; and they do not even know who they are. This protection is critically important, and we need to keep it strong. This cluster of bills today, in every instance, weakens the protection for workers. One of the pieces of legislation would grant the employer more time to contest, contest the findings. It does not restore the balance, as the gentleman speaking in support of this bill earlier said. No, it tips the balance. It tips the balance against the worker. It puts workers and the enforcers who protect them at a disadvantage. It would allow the employer more time but would not allow any new advantages for the enforcer or the worker. H.R. 2729 would create a larger, slower, more cumbersome commission, again reducing the protection to workers. And 2731, the Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act, would encourage employers to contest and simply delay. So all four of these reduce protections that are critically important. H.R. 2730 would divide the power to make and enforce standards from the authority to interpret them; and it would result in two different actors, the Secretary and the commission, being responsible for implementing the act's policy objectives. That is inefficient and undesirable, and it may substantially alter the manner in which the OSH Act is enforced by calling into question the authority and the ability of the Secretary to bring OSHA cases before the courts of appeal. If the commission's interpretations are to be given deference, then on what basis may the Secretary appeal a decision with which the Secretary disagrees? Mr. Speaker, this bill presents more questions than it answers, and it creates conflicts that will only weaken worker protections. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and the other three bills in this family. In this globalized economy, and with the threat of outsourcing and cheap labor overseas, it is a mystery to me why the other side would want to risk reducing American workers' rights, wages, and working conditions. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730, the Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act. This bill specifies that the conclusions of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ``with respect to all questions of law shall be given deference if reasonable.'' The bill requires reviewing courts to grant deference to the Commission, not OSHA, in interpreting questions of law, as long as the commission's interpretation is reasonable. H.R. 2730 fundamentally weakens the powers of the Secretary of Labor. In 1991, the Supreme Court held unanimously in Martin v. OSHRC that the Secretary, not the Commission, should be given deference with regard to interpreting regulations because interpreting the regulation is a necessary adjunct of the Secretary's rulemaking and enforcement powers. The Secretary of Labor is best able to regulate and enforce safety standards. As the promulgator of any given standard, the Secretary is better positioned to reconstruct the purpose of the standard. As enforcer, the Secretary comes in contact with a much greater number of regulatory problems than the Commission and is more likely to develop expertise in assessing the effect of a particular regulatory interpretation. Dividing the power to make and enforce standards from the authority to interpret them results in two different actors, the Secretary and the Commission, being responsible for implementing the Act's policy objectives--an inefficient and undesirable result. The commission is akin to a judicial body, not a regulatory one. Because of the OSH Act's unusual split enforcement structure, the Commission's adjudicatory authority is more aptly compared to that exercised by a court in an agency-review context, than to a unitary agency interpreting the regulations that it had promulgated. Conferring authoritative fact-finding and review powers in the Commission (and ultimately the courts), a body that is wholly independent of the administrative enforcer, ensures employers are protected from prosecutorial bias. H.R. 2730, by granting administrative powers to the Commission, confuses its role. Finally, H.R. 2730 may substantially alter the manner in which the OSH Act is enforced by calling into question the authority and ability of the Secretary to bring OSHA cases before the courts of appeal. If the Commission's interpretations are to be given deference, then on what basis may the Secretary appeal a decision with which the Secretary disagrees? Mr. Speaker, this bill present more questions than it answers and creates conflicts that will only weaken worker protections. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. In the globalized economy, with the threat of outsourcing and cheap overseas labor, it is a mystery to me why the Republicans want to risk reducing American workers' rights, wages, and working conditions.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2731, Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act. This bill changes current law to permit the awarding of attorney's fees and expenses to a small employer who prevails in an administrative or judicial proceeding against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regardless of whether the position of OSHA was ``substantially justified.'' This bill treats OSHA differently than all other federal agencies. The bill holds OSHA to higher standard with regard to the payment of the opposing party's attorney's fees than any other agency. Like most Federal agencies, OSHA is subject to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Under EAJA, if the government's position is not ``substantially justified,'' the government must pay the prevailing party's fees and costs. According to information provided to then- Chairman Goodling in 1999, from FY 1981 through FY 1998, there were 68 applications for fees under EAJA by employers involving OSHA complaints. 41 of those applications were denied and 27 were granted. In FY 1999, there were 12 applications filed, of which 2 had been denied, 3 had been granted, and 7 were still pending at the time the information was provided. There is no evidence that OSHA has engaged in reckless prosecutions or that it should be singled out for a higher standard than all other Federal agencies. The likely consequences of this change is that OSHA would be less likely to issue complaints against those employers, more safety and health violations will go uncorrected, and, consequentially, more workers may be injured or killed. This bill places employers' convenience over the safety and health of workers. There is no private right of action under the OSH Act--if OSHA fails to enforce the law, workers have no other recourse. In effect, H.R. 2731 places a higher priority on compensating employers for legal fees than on protecting the safety and health of workers. Mr. Speaker, today we should be talking about how to protect our workers not endanger them. 15 workers were fatally injured and more than 12,800 workers were injured or made ill each day during 2002. These statistics do not include deaths from occupational diseases, which claim the lives of an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 workers each year. This bill will cause the number of worker deaths to go up, not down. We should be discussing giving OSHA the proper funding to do its job. Between FY 1999 and FY 2003, the number of employees who work in workplaces inspected by federal OSHA inspections decreased by nearly 12%. The average number of hours spent per inspection also decreased between FY 1999 and FY 2003, from 22 to 18.8 hours per safety inspection and from 40 to 34.7 hours per health inspection. Adjusting for inflation, the FY 2005 proposed OSHA budget represents a $6.5 million cut over FY 2004 appropriations. The FY 2005 OSHA budget proposed increasing programs for voluntary compliance and employer assistance while cutting training and outreach programs for workers and freezing standard-setting and enforcement programs. At OSHA, the president proposes to cut worker safety training programs by 65 percent and to shift these funds to employer assistance programs. These are the problems we should be addressing today, rather than debating H.R. 2731. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week, I would like to recognize the bravery of two law enforcement officers from my district whose heroic acts were honored this week by Corrections USA, a leading national voice for correctional officers. It is said that correctional officers ``patrol law enforcement's toughest beat,'' and nothing could be truer. Everyday, these officers work to keep violent felons behind bars and put their lives at risk to ensure that our families can feel safe in our homes and on our streets. The work they do is critical to the safety of our communities, and their sacrifices exemplify the spirit of public service. Far too often these sacrifices go unnoticed, but on Monday May 10th, Corrections U.S.A. honored some of these extraordinary public servants at their Medal of Valor Awards Ceremony. Each of the award recipients went beyond the call of duty, putting their lives in jeopardy in order to save the life of another. They all responded admirably to the crises they faced, and demonstrated the true strength of their character. I was pleased and honored to joins Corrections USA in recognizing the courage of these fine officers, and would like to take this opportunity to share the stories of two of my constituents who were honored at this event. On July 16, 2003, Corrections Officer Chris Wilson quickly came to the aid of one of his colleagues at the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center in North Brunswick, New Jersey, saving him from a severe beating at the hands of an inmate. Mr. Wilson immediately responded to fellow Officer Tim Morris's distress call and found him being attacked by an inmate. Mr. Wilson restrained the inmate and spared Mr. Morris from further injury. Officer Wilson received a Gold Medal of Valor for stopping this brutal attack. Sergeant Joseph DeMatteo, a 22-year veteran of the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center, demonstrated his strength of character by assisting victims of a car accident he witnessed on his way to work. On July 23, 2003, Sergeant DeMatteo saw an SUV flipping over a small car, and quickly rushed to the scene to help. Because of his experience as a volunteer fire fighter and first aid responder, he assisted the driver in the first car, who was pinned from the chest down under the car's motor. When he noticed flames in the second car, Sergeant DeMatteo left the first driver in the care of another individual assisting at the scene and rushed to the other car. Sergeant DeMatteo and another individual were able to break the windows of the car and move the injured driver to a safe spot on the grass. Once the driver was stabilized, Sergeant DeMatteo went back to the other driver that was still trapped in his car. He stayed with the driver and helped keep him calm until emergency workers arrived to release him. Sergeant DeMatteo received the Life Saving Award for his efforts. I commend the bravery of these individuals and extend my heartfelt gratitude to correctional officers across the country for their service to our communities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute legislation offered by Mr. Kind and Mr. Andrews and in opposition to H.R. 4281. Across this great nation, over 40 million people continue to lack adequate health insurance coverage. This is a problem that merits immediate Congressional action. Moreover, small businesses across my district in central New Jersey come to me all the time, telling me how difficult it is to continue providing health care to their employees. I am glad that so many of them believe in providing good benefits to their workers, but I know they are really hurting. Unfortunately, the House leadership is more interested in scoring political points than in helping small businesses continue to provide quality health care for their employees. The very fact that we are poised to pass a bill that is virtually identical to what we did here last June is a clear indication that we are here to play partisan games, not to find a real solution. I hope my colleagues do not believe the hype we're hearing today. H.R. 4281 is not a realistic way to help small businesses with their health care costs. It looks like a good idea at first glance. Under this bill, small businesses could join together to form ``associations'' that will leverage their collective buying power to get lower-cost health insurance for their employees. I certainly support the concept of companies working together collectively to control costs. It's an idea that has worked within individual states. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kind-Andrews substitute. This legislation commits actual federal funds--the $50 billion allocated in the budget--to form Small Employer Health Benefit plans similar to our oft-cited Federal Employee Health Benefit plans. This would create a realistic, workable way for small businesses to use their collective buying power to lower costs and increase coverage. Kind-Andrews would expand coverage for the uninsured and will help small businesses deal with the rising costs of insuring their employees. Moreover, it is fully paid for and will not preempt state law, maintaining the kind of minimum benefit levels that ensure quality coverage for beneficiaries and their dependents. H.R. 4281, on the other hand, expands ERISA to preempt state law. States have traditionally taken the lead on insurance regulation, and they have implemented rules to protect beneficiaries and ensure minimum coverage levels. This bill would allow AHPs to avoid all of these regulations. Most states require that any health plan cover some basic items such as mammograms, contraception, prostate cancer screenings, and many mental health services. H.R. 4281 would allow ``associations'' to avoid having to offer these basic benefits, to the detriment of policyholders. For example, under this bill, I could create a plan that covers nothing but ingrown toenail surgery. It would certainly be the cheapest plan out there, but how much would it actually help beneficiaries? Several of my colleagues and I tried to amend H.R. 660, the first iteration of the bill before us, in both subcommittee and full committee to ensure that AHPs would indeed have minimum benefit requirements. I offered one amendment requiring parity between physical and mental health benefits and another requiring coverage for oral contraception. Despite the fact that these common-sense minimum requirements are law in a number of states, my amendments were shot down by the majority. So we're still left with a bill that brings a real possibility of the creation of comically inadequate health plans, which is rather disturbing. What's even more alarming is the effect that this legislation will have on the overall health care environment. The danger is, of course, cherry-picking. While AHPs may work well to help insure generally healthy, young people, the sickest of our population--those most in need of health care coverage--will be left with higher premiums. What kind of an effect will this have on our current health care environment? Could this actually take us farther away from covering the uninsured in this country? One study, in fact, said that AHPs would actually cause premiums to rise for the vast majority of small businesses and their employees. Here's another important question. Exactly how many of the uninsured would get coverage from these new types of AHPs? CBO has estimated that about 8.5 million people might get coverage through the types of plans proposed under H.R. 4281. That sounds pretty good--until you realize that only 620,000 of them would come from the ranks of the uninsured, while the other 7.9 million would be in firms switching from traditional coverage. That means we'd be extending coverage to a miniscule fraction of the uninsured in this country. The bottom line is that more than forty million Americans lack health insurance--a serious crisis that needs to be addressed. But H.R. 4281 won't do much good, and could very well make a bad situation even worse. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4281 and vote for the Kind- Andrews substitute.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and in support of the substitute that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will be submitting.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the mistreatment of prisoners and detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These abuses are outrageous, deplorable, un-American, and contrary to the values and ethics that our country espouses. The atmosphere that allowed this to happen shows a level of tolerance for abuse that is intolerable. The United States has suffered a blow to its credibility and effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Photographs showing the abuse that Iraqi prisoners and detainees have suffered at the hands of American personnel damage the standing of the vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq, who are performing with honor, bravery, and professionalism. The response of the Bush administration to reports of systemic abuse has been both problematic and disquieting. Major General Antonio M. Taguba's report detailing these abuses, prepared in late February, should have been recognized as a serious matter. Instead, it was largely ignored. I am also disappointed that the administration chose to keep Congress and the public in the dark about this situation until the national news media decided to run the story last week. The administration has a responsibility to inform Congress and act decisively when volatile situations arise. The U.S. Congress has a critical responsibility to conduct thorough and bipartisan oversight investigations to ensure that those involved are held accountable for their actions. These investigations must address possible abuse by U.S. civilian contractor personnel or other U.S. civilians, as well as the command structure and systemic deficiencies that contributed to such abuse. The abuse that has occurred at Abu Ghraib is the latest in a series of very serious failures of leadership from military and civilian leaders. The President and his team were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were wrong about the way American soldiers would be greeted by the Iraqi people. They were wrong about how much the war would cost and how long it would last. And they were wrong about the number of soldiers necessary to win the war and secure the peace. Now, in light of serious human rights violations, they did nothing to get to the bottom of it. This mishandling has created an international crisis that could set the Iraqi people against American efforts in the Middle East for generations. The President must recognize these consistent failures and take decisive action. I ask unanimous consent to include in today's Congressional Record a letter that I sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of February 5, along with six of my House colleagues. This letter inquires about the policy of CPA forces detaining Iraqis without due process and notification to their families. I also ask unanimous consent to include the response that we received from Thomas L. Carter, Senior Counselor to Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III. Though the response is dated March 22, it was not received until May 3, three months after my initial inquiry. This response testifies that the processes established ``afford all persons in Coalition custody all the rights and safeguards set out in applicable International Humanitarian Law.'' Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, February 5, 2004. Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Office of the Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: I write to inquire about the policy of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) forces in Iraq detaining Iraqis without due process and notification of family. Several news outlets and international advocacy organizations have criticized the CPA's treatment of Iraqi detainees. I am concerned that CPA tactics designed to secure the region are in fact compromising the long-term interests of Iraqis, other internationals, and even the CPA. I request your response to the following concerns: What is the current procedure for communication between CPA forces and the families of detained Iraqis? Are they able to receive prompt and accurate information regarding the health and legal status of their family member; and what is the status of detainees who were to be freed under the provisional release program, and have family members of these detainees been kept abreast of developments? I believe that CPA forces have the moral obligation to demonstrate respectful treatment of detainees and, of course, the legal responsibility to uphold the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Further, we must make sure that our treatment of detainees does not sow the seeds of resentment by Iraqis, subjecting CPA forces, other internationals, and Iraqis cooperating with the CPA, to great danger. Seizing suspects in the middle of the night and leaving a bewildered, uninformed family behind brings to my mind the ``disappeared'' victims of detestable regimes around the world in the past. No American wants to see the CPA regarded as being in any way like those discredited regimes. I understand the need to employ forceful tactics in a region that is still largely insecure and home to many insurgents and Saddam Hussein loyalists. However, I am concerned that CPA forces are not balancing the need to secure the region and arrest insurgents with their obligation to fair treatment of detainees and with the need for the cooperation of the general populace in force protection and eventual transition of political power to the people of Iraq. I look forward to your reply. If it is necessary to present your response in a classified setting, I would be willing to make such arrangements. I thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Sincerely, Rush Holt, Member of Congress. Robert Wexler, Member of Congress. Raul Grijalva, Member of Congress. Fortney Pete Stark, Member of Congress. Dennis Kucinich, Member of Congress. Barney Frank, Member of Congress.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 605, a resolution recognizing the importance of increasing awareness of autism, supporting programs for increased research and improved treatment of autism, and improving training and support for individuals with autism and those who care for individuals with autism. Even though autism is one of the most common developmental disorders affecting children, it is still poorly understood throughout the medical community, producing great frustration among concerned parents. For reasons that are far from clear, children with autism often lack the normal means of communicating and interacting with others, making their transitions to adult society extraordinarily difficult. Achieving a better understanding of autism will take time, money, and the dedication of researchers and volunteers across the country. That is why I call on my colleagues to support additional funding for autism research and surveillance activities performed by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. It is also vital that we support the basic science research being performed at the National Science Foundation and other institutions, which provide the knowledge base for the more advanced health research performed by medical researchers. One of the key questions that these researchers are trying to answer is the potential of a connection between environmental factors and the prevalence of developmental disorders like autism. That is why Representative Saxton and I have formed the Children's Environmental Health Caucus, which will serve to educate members and staff here on the Hill about the latest scientific research into the impact of environmental factors on children's health. I hope my colleagues can join this caucus and work with us to further this type of research. It is also critical that we provide the services needed to educate and care for those who do have autism. That is why I would like to call on the Congress to establish mandatory full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is time for the federal government to step up and fulfill its obligation on special education funding for the sake of children with special needs and for the sake of our constituents who often face high property taxes. I would also like to commend the work of all of the nonprofit groups that do so much to provide for children with autism and their families. Groups like the New Jersey Center for Outreach and Services for the Autism Community (NJCOSAC) provide information, services, advocacy, and education. Others, like the National Alliance for Autism Research (NAAR), support and fund research into science-based approaches for determining the causes, effective treatments, and potential cures for autism. NAAR, headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, was founded by two of my constituents, Karen and Eric London, whose son Zachary was diagnosed with autism when he was only twenty-two months old. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and to remember those children with autism when it comes time to debate appropriations. Funding scientific and biomedical research is not just about giving jobs to scientists--it's about giving hope to people like Karen and Eric London and their son Zachary.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a terrible burden on middle class taxpayers and the middle class should be excluded from the AMT. Once again, however, the Republican leadership is using budget gimmicks to hide the real cost of their tax cut and doing nothing to offset it. While the proposed AMT relief bill carries an official cost of $17 billion, its actual long-term costs are much higher: $549 billion over ten years, or $658 billion if the added interest costs on the national debt are taken into account. Indeed, by proposing a one- year ``fix'' to a perpetual problem, H.R. 4227 purposefully obscures not just the long-term cost of AMT reform. Ignoring these long-term costs irresponsibly undermines our ability to adequately plan for the future. It costs the future generation, as well as the present economy. More unpaid-for tax cuts will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now create large debt and high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education, and making it harder for business to raise capital. This is why I support the Democratic alternative to relieve the burden of the AMT on middle class taxpayers. The substitute would provide temporary relief from the AMT that is more broad and simpler than the relief contained in H.R. 4227. The substitute would simply eliminate AMT liability for all taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is less than $250,000 ($125,000 for single taxpayers). Above those income levels, AMT liabilities would be phased in over a $40,000 range ($20,000 for single individuals). The substitute would provide a framework for total reform of the AMT. It would require the Secretary of the Treasury to promptly submit legislative recommendations to the Congress, and it would require the Committee on Ways and Means to act on those recommendations this summer. It is time for the Congress to be honest with the American taxpayers and proceed with real AMT reform. Moreover, the substitute would be revenue neutral. Its cost would be offset by restricting certain tax shelters, which has already passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. The AMT was designed to ensure that all taxpayers pay a minimum amount of tax and, in effect, limited the ability to use tax loopholes. The substitute would directly address those tax avoidance transactions, thereby minimizing the need for the minimum tax and provide relief for the middle class families of my district. We cannot continue to pretend that the AMT problem will go away on its own and to make major policy decisions based on the reckless unrealistic assumption that it will. We must work toward a long-term, fully paid-for solution that protects our ability to fund critical national priorities and allows us to make realistic plans for the future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.Res. 598 legislation recognizing the valuable contributions of military impacted schools, teachers, administration, and staff for their ongoing contributions to the education of military children. I want to reiterate the importance of supporting our military families through the Impact Aid program, and I commend the teachers and school administrators for the outstanding work they do. This program is vital to the education of millions of children across the nation. Impact Aid was created in 1950 when Congress recognized the obligation of the Federal Government to assist school districts and communities that experience a loss in their local property tax base due to the presence of the Federal Government. Between 1950 and 1969, the Impact Aid Program was fully funded by Congress. Since that time the funding level has not kept pace with the amount required to cover the Federal Government's tax obligation. Impact Aid funds are sent directly to the school district. The funds go directly into the school district's general fund for operations such as the purchase of textbooks, computers, utilities, and payment of staff salaries. Over 90 percent of funding for education comes from local funds such as property taxes. But what happens if that property is owned by the Federal Government and is off the tax rolls? Kids report to class with no property tax dollars needed for their school. In my district more than 1,000 students at Monmouth Regional High School, more than 1,300 students in Eatontown, and more than 1,700 in Tinton Falls are affected by impact aid. The teachers there work very hard to provide a quality education to all their students. Teachers who teach students of military families have the added burden of teaching students whose parents are or may be going overseas. The quickest way to take a soldier or sailor's mind off their mission is to have them worrying about their children's education. Children from military families come from some of the hardest working, most patriotic families, but the schools they attend sometimes face bankruptcy. This is because of the way we fund our nation's schools. Impact Aid honors our commitment to military families. It guarantees that those families who serve to protect our freedom are in turn protected by the Federal Government. The hard working teachers of these districts ensure that these children of military members will succeed. The administrators, teachers, aids, guidance counselors, librarians, bus drivers, janitors all need to be commended for their work. Our constitution commands that the first job of the Federal Government is to ``provide for the common defense.'' As we improve the pay and benefits of men and women in uniform, we must also support their kids, the local schools they attend, and the teachers who teach them. The time is now to support schools that educate the children whose parents wear our nation's uniform.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 380, legislation recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education. I am proud to join my colleagues in passing this bipartisan proposal today in the House of Representatives. As a teacher, I can testify to the value that music and art can have in a well-rounded academic program. There is a growing body of scientific research demonstrating that children who receive music instruction perform better on spatial-temporal reasoning tests and proportional math problems. Opportunities in music and the arts have also enabled children with disabilities to participate more fully in school and community activities. There is something special about music an the arts that speak to what is special and unique in the human spirit. Music and the arts can motivate at-risk students to stay in school and become active participants in the education process. They teach all students about beauty and abstract thinking. According to the College Board, college-bound high school seniors in 1998 who received music instruction scored 53 points higher on the verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and 39 points higher on the math portion of the test than college-bound high school seniors with no music or arts instruction. Other data show that individuals who participate in band or orchestra reported the lowest levels of current and lifelong use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs. Comprehensive, sequential music instruction assists brain development and improves cognitive and communicative skills, self-discipline, and creativity. Mr. Speaker, music education enhances intellectual development and enriches the academic environment for children of all ages. I am proud to join with my colleagues in passing this bipartisan resolution in recognition of these facts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, when a couple plans to marry, it is a time of anticipation, joy, and yes, stress. There is much to think about, to plan for, and to organize. But when a couple is finally standing at the altar, they should not be thinking about paying more in taxes. When the marriage penalty tax was in effect, there is evidence that couples were thinking just that: many couples stayed unmarried for tax purposes, and others even tried to game the system by divorcing each December and remarrying each January. Unless they went to great lengths to avoid marriage altogether, many couples were walloped with the marriage penalty at tax time. The marriage penalty did not always exist. When the Federal Government first levied an income tax in 1913, all taxpayers filed individual tax returns, and the rate schedules did not differentiate between singles and married couples. By basing a married couple's federal income tax entirely on the separate income of each spouse, the original code taxed married couples no differently than it taxed single taxpayers. Created in 1969, the marriage penalty caused many married couples to pay more in taxes than the sum of what they would have paid as unmarried individuals filing separately. In recent years, it punished married couples where both spouses worked with an average tax penalty of $1,100, while giving couples where only one spouse worked a marriage bonus. By making the repeal of the marriage penalty permanent, we will allow 70,000 working families in my district--and 810,000 in New Jersey--to use their savings for mortgage payments, car payments, college payments, childcare, or other needed expenses. It will be beneficial to the New Jersey economy. This vote is the sixth in a series of votes over my time in Congress to remove the marriage penalty. I have always voted for its repeal. In fact, several years ago, I voted to override the former President's veto of it. Simply put, Americans have rejected the idea that our tax laws should make it more expensive to be married than to be single. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made a botch of tax policy in this country. The Tax Code remains burdensome, unwieldy, and in places, unfair. Some Americans pay excessive and unfair taxes relative to other Americans. The unfairness is glaringly obvious. It should be fixed. I believe, as many do, that tax cuts should first go to the middle- class. Not only do middle-class tax cuts ease the tax burden on the group that feels it most, but they also deliver more economic stimulus than tax cuts targeted to the wealthiest 1 percent. Through middle- class tax cuts, we can help families in New Jersey and around the country provide for their families' healthcare, education, housing, and other priorities. The marriage penalty is one of the only parts of the Republican tax package that can fairly be described as a middle-class tax cut. That is why I support its repeal, even though I do not support the broader budgetary approach that has taken our country back down the road of deficits as far as the eye can see. Generally speaking, tax policy has a unique role in the American political system: it is perhaps where the government and the citizen interact most directly. Because the marriage penalty seems illogical and capricious, it makes the whole government seem illogical and capricious. The repeal was passed in 2001, and it should be sustained. Of course, I am disappointed that this legislation is not offset with other revenue or savings. This repeal could have been done with a higher priority placed on balancing the other side of the ledger, but the Republican leadership is more interested in symbolism then fiscal responsibility. Still, although I do not support--and have voted against--the overall Bush tax cuts because they are skewed to benefit the wealthy, the marriage penalty should not be allowed to return. In accomplishing this victory for married couples and working families, I invite my colleagues to begin immediately to revise their overall budget so that it responsibly and effectively meets America's needs and priorities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, April 24, 2004 marked the 89th anniversary of one of the most harrowing events in modern day history--the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian community is too familiar with the details of this tragedy. They know well the accounts of Armenian leaders, writers and professionals in Constantinople that were rounded up, deported and killed; the accounts of men, women and children were driven into the desert between Terablus and Derzor to die of starvation, disease and exposure; and the accounts of families that were burned alive in wooden houses or chained together and drowned in Lake Van. Unfortunately, few outside of the Armenian community know of the Armenian Genocide-- one of the most awful events in modern history. Many are not aware that Ottoman officials expelled millions of Armenians from the homelands they had inhabited for over 2,500 years. They are not aware that Ottoman officials attempted to exterminate the Armenian race and the precedent this event set for the genocides that followed. It is distressing that horrors of this magnitude have largely been forgotten. Even more disturbing are the governments, institutions, scholars, and individuals who deny the enormity of these crimes against humanity. It is inconceivable that individuals and governments continue to ignore the substantial evidence--including numerous survivor accounts, photodocumentaries, and official documents in the archives of the United States, Britain, France, Austria, and the Vatican--that prove these atrocities took place. It is also frustrating that some rationalize these crimes or refuse to recognize this premeditated ethnic cleansing as genocide. The international community must deal honestly with this senseless genocide. World leaders must rise above indifference and the political considerations that they have cowered behind. They must unequivocally acknowledge the murders of one and a half million Armenians that began in 1915 for what it is--genocide. They must use their position to reveal the truth and bring attention to this tragedy that has been overlooked and brushed aside for too long. We all want to forget these horrific tragedies in our history and bury them in the past. However, understanding the immeasurable wrongs the Armenian people endured--and the mass scale on which they occurred--is vital to grasping the impact these events continue to have on the stability of the region. It is only through the painful process of acknowledging and discussing these horrific events that we can prevent similar iniquity in the future. We owe full recognition and acceptance of these crimes to the one and half million victims of the Armenian Genocide. Anything less is an insult to their memory.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on this Earth Day, I think it is vital to point out the increasing need for this country and this Congress to put together a sensible, rational energy policy that lowers our dependence on fossil fuels and continues to stimulate our economy. Developing such a policy is not simply about protecting our environment. From a national security standpoint, our dependence on oil, especially in the transportation sector, is a continuing danger. You can look under every rock and drill in every inch of wilderness and coastline we have, and we will simply never be able to meet our current level of consumption. The sobering fact is that the Middle East contains a tremendous share of the world's oil supply--and the more we remain dependent on their oil, the more we expose ourselves and the world to violence and terrorism. From a public health standpoint, we can no longer rely so heavily on those energy sources that are poisoning us. Coal is cheap and abundant in the U.S.--but its emissions, including mercury and sulfur dioxide, cause thousands of premature deaths and diseases like emphysema and asthma every year. These are the very human costs that we must consider when we think about where we are getting our energy. Of course, the environmental impact of our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels is well known. Even as our cars get cleaner, their combined carbon dioxide emissions, along with those from power plants and other sources, are largely to blame for global warming. The emissions from burning coal foul the air, creating smog and acid rain, while mercury falls to the ground and pollutes our waterways. Equally troubling is the way we extract fossil fuels--to get coal, we rip off the tops of mountains and dump them into nearby streams; to get oil and natural gas, we drill extensively, often risking spillage. The oil and gas industries seem to have an insatiable appetite for opening and exploiting our most precious lands and our coastlines--yet even they must realize that we cannot drill our way to a better energy future. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we passed in this House last year was not an energy policy. It was a grab bag of goodies for special interests. The bill reads as if every sector of the energy industry simply submitted their wish lists, translated nicely into legislative language--much like the development of the recommendations of the Vice President's Energy Task Force. What we really need is a rational energy policy that puts us on the road to a more secure energy future. We should invest in research into renewable and sustainable sources and energy efficiency. We should set intelligent goals for the future: ten, twenty, fifty years in the future, how much energy should we be producing from each source? How much should we be consuming in each sector--transportation, residential, industrial? How can we protect our environment and our health while meeting the energy needs of a growing economy? We should also get our hands around the growing demand across the country for gas for our cars, electricity for our lights and computers, and natural gas for our heat--and find out how to be efficient as possible with all of that consumption. I would like to lay out a challenge to all of my colleagues. Let's reject the stalled energy legislation. Let's move beyond the politics of squeezing every last bit of oil, gas, and coal out of this country and work on policies that envision a sustainable, secure energy future. A future where more of our energy needs are met by those sustainable sources like wind fusion, the sun, and biomass. A future where Americans don't have to sacrifice their own health just to keep using their air conditioners. A future where cartels like OPEC no longer hold us captive to the volatile world oil market and our energy needs no longer imperil national security. A future where protecting our environment and meeting our energy needs go hand in hand. To do so will take patience, research, and some innovative thinking. I plan to do all of these in the coming months and years, and I hope my colleagues will join with me.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentleman from North Carolina also. Each of these pieces of legislation deals with one aspect of the problem. One of the lessons of the election of 2000 was that many millions of Americans learned how complicated the voting question is. But we certainly can take care of these two matters in a straightforward way. Again, my legislation would require that all voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits. It would ban the use of undisclosed software. It would require that all voting systems meet these requirements, a voter verification, in time for their November 2004 election, this year. It requires that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities earlier than under the Help America Vote Act, and it would require mandatory surprise recounts in one-half of 1 percent of all jurisdictions. I think that would go a long way. Now, some of my colleagues here on the floor say, oh, that is not necessary, let us let HAVA work. I tell you one way we can let HAVA work. Each State has submitted to the Election Assistance Commission a plan of how it will comply with HAVA. That has been published in the Federal Register. Public comments on those State plans are due by May 8, and members of the public are invited to comment to the Election Assistance Commission. That is one way that the process will work. Because ultimately it is the public, not the 435 of us here, who own this democracy and who ultimately must ensure that it works as it should.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HOLT. Certainly I will continue to yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, there is one more point I want to make quickly before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HOLT. That is right.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those remarks. Let me again quote from Anthony Stevens, the Assistant Secretary of State of New Hampshire: The cost of restoring legitimacy is far greater than the cost of maintaining it. When there is an error in the election or when there is uncertainty that there might be an error in the election, it hurts democracy. The winner is compromised; the loser is compromised. Democracy is compromised. So the fact that there is so much uncertainty about what happened in Florida three-and-a-half years ago is certainly no cause for celebration by the Republicans that they won because there is a cloud hanging over our democracy, and it cannot be resolved. The HAVA Act, the Help America Vote Act, does take care of some of the problems that my colleague from Florida raised. A voter now can demand a provisional ballot. If when you show up at the polls you are told, well, we cannot find your name on the registration list, you can vote provisionally. You must be allowed to vote provisionally under the Help America Vote Act. And then later they will determine whether that ballot is good. They will not turn you away. It also increases accessibility, it increases compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, it strengthens the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it provides for a centralized database in each State of registered voters, and it helps replace the old machines.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and since she speaks about appropriations, it is worth pointing out that the Help America Vote Act, which was passed to bring voting up-to-date and to remove uncertainties, dimpled chads, pregnant chads, hanging chads, butterfly ballots and all that and to provide greater access for people with physical disabilities, to provide greater voting rights for minorities, that bill is a very important step, but it is terribly underfunded. The appropriations have not come close to matching what the authors of that bill said was necessary. But to the other point that my friend from Ohio raised where in Ohio if an election is very close there must be a recount, let me speak from personal experience. A few years ago, I was involved in a close election. My opponent asked for a recount. In one of the five counties in my District, there were then in use electronic voting machines. No surprise, several weeks after the election, when the judge asked for a recount, those machines gave exactly the same numbers that they gave 5 minutes after the polls closed. They call that a recount but it is meaningless. If there was an error, if the voter's intention was not properly recorded, no one will ever know. Each time you interrogate the computer, it will give you the same answer. I do not call that a recount because you are not testing against the voters' intentions. Let me quickly just read a few comments from the press around the country. The New York Times: ``Even a cursory look at the behavior of the major voting machine companies reveals systematic flouting of the rules. Software was modified without government oversight; machine components were replaced without being rechecked. And here's the crucial point: even if there are strong reasons to suspect that electronic machines miscounted votes, nothing can be done about it. There is no paper trail; there is nothing to recount.'' Anchorage, Alaska: ``Alaska law,'' and by extension the Federal law, ``should require electronic voting machines to produce a paper record of each vote.'' Bangor, Maine: ``Paperless voting machines and those that transmit results over the Internet are vulnerable to glitches and manipulation by hackers. Yet election officials in many States are tempted by a slick technology.'' Asbury Park Press: ``There's no good reason for Congress to delay mandating that electronic machines produce paper records.'' Los Angeles Times: They say, ``Machines, too, can lie.'' Boston Globe: ``It's the computers' turn to mess up elections.'' Newsday says, ``Elections flawed.'' Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel: ``The electronic voting machines are better than dimpled chads but need back-up.'' Eugene, Oregon, The Register-Guard: ``Voters need a record.'' Sarasota Herald Tribune: ``A paper trail would increase faith in elections.'' I could go on. In newspaper after newspaper, in town meeting after town meeting, in letter after letter sent to probably every Member of this House of Representatives, the public is calling for a voter verified paper trail because, I am pleased to say, the American public cares about their votes. They believe their votes are sacred and we should preserve that sanctity. Someone who can speak with authority about this, about the importance of the franchise, how important it is that we extend the vote to all eligible voters and we make it as easy as possible for them to vote thoughtfully and that we ensure the integrity of those votes is the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), which, I am sorry to say, the State has become the poster child of voting irregularities, but that is just because the vote was close in Florida. If it had been close in other States, we would have found voting irregularities in other States, too. We have to do everything we can in every State to restore the sanctity of the vote, the integrity of the vote, the reliability of the vote, and with that, I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).