Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment with a simple purpose: To ensure the video recording of each strategic intelligence interrogation of any person in the custody of the Department of Defense, except for personnel and troops in the field conducting battlefield interrogations. The video recordings would be kept at the appropriate level of classification and could be used to get maximum intelligence benefit of the interrogation, and the judge advocate general would develop guidelines for the recording and retaining of the recordings. I think it is important for our national security that we make this provision law. I yield 2 minutes to an Iraq war veteran, a former officer in the Judge Advocate General Corps who understands this very well, the need for it, and will speak, Mr. Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the remaining time.

Mr. HOLT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady. It is becoming standard for interrogations all over this country, I have a list here from the 50 States, for enforcement and prosecutorial interrogations where it is required. In fact, it is required in New Jersey, Alaska, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota. And it is required for a variety of reasons, not just for the protection of the detainees or the protection of the interrogators, but to get maximum benefit from the interrogation. Under this amendment, the judge advocate general would develop guidelines to ensure that the required video recording is sufficient to protect both the abuse of detainees and to protect the identity of the interrogators from unauthorized disclosure. This is standard practice. I yield to the chairman of the committee, who can speak not only from his position as Chair but from his experience as a prosecutor, the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Conference Committee for its hard work on the Farm Bill, and for all of the improvements the final bill makes to existing nutrition, conservation, organic farming and other important programs. But I also must express my great disappointment that, in this year of record crop prices and soaring agricultural profits, we have let a precious opportunity go by to implement real reform to the extremely outdated commodity and price support programs in the bill. The good news today fills a long list. According to the USDA, more than 11 percent of U.S. households are food-insecure. Today, we will approve more than $10 billion in funding for programs that provide American families with low cost, healthy food, including more than $1 billion for The Emergency Food Assistance Program and more than $1 billion for the USDA Snack Program. This bill also increases the minimum benefit for food stamp recipients and excludes retirement and education savings accounts from the assets to be considered in determining eligibility. And I am particularly pleased to see that it includes $5 million in funding annually for Community Food Projects grants, which funding I have previously urged Congress to maintain and which I engaged in a colloquy about with the gentlelady from Connecticut Ms. DeLauro in connection with the Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Similarly, the bill before us today will authorize almost $8 billion in conservation funding, including increasing funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $3.4 billion, adding more than $1 billion in new funding for the Conservation Security Program, reestablishing the funding level for the Wetlands Reserve Program at $1.4 billion, and doubling funding for the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. And I was especially pleased to see that the House- passed provision that would have restricted USDA conservation programs from encouraging farmers to reduce their use of toxic pesticides in implementing integrated pest management programs was removed from the final bill, and I would like to thank the two dozen Members who joined me in sending a letter to the Conferees to request that the pesticides discrimination provision be removed. The Farm Bill supports organic farmers by providing $22 million in funding for the USDA's organic certification cost share program, which defrays the costs that organic producers incur when seeking organic certification, provides $5 million in funding for organic marketing data, and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments of up to $20,000 per year, capped at $80,000 over six years, to a producer for conservation practices related to organic production or the transition to organic production. I have long supported facilitating the conversion to organic farming, and was delighted to have the support of this chamber when it voted in favor of my amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Bill to more than double the funding for the Organic Transitions Research program. Therefore, although I will be voting in favor of this bill today, for all of the good that it will do, I note that there is still a substantial amount of good that it should have done, and will not. Although the commodity programs in the bill account for less than 13 percent of the Farm Bill funding, and represent a decrease of $60 billion compared to the last Farm Bill in 2002, we could have, and should have, done better. First, although cuts to direct payments totaled $300 million, that represents a decrease of less than one percent to the $50 billion program. At the same time, subsidies for commodities such as soybeans and wheat have actually increased, despite the fact that prices for those commodities have also increased--by more than 100 percent and 200 percent, respectively, since 2002. The House-passed Farm Bill would have guaranteed $840 million in funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program over five years, but in the final bill the program was cut to one tenth that amount--only $84 million. According to news reports, the amount of international food aid provided represents less than 1 percent of the Farm Bill's total cost, while at the same time the bill preserves the trade-distorting subsidy programs that make it virtually impossible for farmers in developing nations to compete. And finally, I was troubled to learn that an 11th-hour change was inserted into the bill by the Conference Committee, despite it not having been debated or voted on in either Chamber, that would negate a U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit ruling mandating disclosure of USDA data relevant to producer compliance with subsidy programs. In reaching its decision, the Court stated that ``there is a special need for public scrutiny of agency action that distributes extensive amounts of public funds in the form of subsidies and other financial benefits.'' No title of the Farm Bill has been more hotly debated than the commodity title, the original justifications for which have all but evaporated over time, and thus it troubles me that a provision that not only goes to the very heart of that matter but also appears to fly squarely in the face of a recent court ruling on the subject is being put before this body without debate or a specific vote on the merits. In fact, I intend to request a hearing on this last-minute language. Therefore, this is one of those decisions that is not clear cut. On balance, I feel that the good news in the Farm Bill outweighs the bad, although not by much. I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin Mr. Kind for his continuing leadership in working to develop a Farm Bill that more equitably reflects our modern day needs and economic realities, and I want him to know that I look forward to working with him and others in the future to address the shortcomings of this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership in crafting this bill and bringing it before the House. In brief, I wanted to let my colleagues know that the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, which I chair, has been involved in this process. Our role has been to ensure that any intelligence programs included for funding in this supplemental package have been reviewed for their appropriateness and value to our troops in the field. While the Department of the Defense is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, the professionals in the Intelligence Community are focused on threats there and elsewhere around the world. A good intelligence system can save lives by preventing war, or, should war come, by helping to win the war as quickly as possible. We must ensure that the troops in combat get the best real-time intelligence and at the same time that policymakers get solid, independent, insightful intelligence about countries, trends, and potential conflicts around the world. I look forward to providing another update on our work once the base DoD appropriations bill is completed later this spring. Regarding Iraq, I recently returned from a trip to that deeply troubled country. American troops are performing superbly in Iraq under continually difficult conditions. While in Baghdad, I met with soldiers--including those from New Jersey--and told them they deserve not just our gratitude, but all of the support they need when they return to help them get on with their lives. The situation in Iraq, however, is not in the power of our soldiers to control, as events have repeatedly shown. It is impossible to hide the fact that the limited security gains achieved since last fall have not been matched by political reconciliation on the part of the Iraqis. The uneven performance of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) during the fighting with the Mahdi Army in late March 2008 has called into question the viability of the ISF as a national defense and police force, despite our having poured billions of dollars into the ISF. Unfortunately, Iraq's central government continues to lack legitimacy in the eyes of its people, as the recent spasms of violence in Basra, Baghdad, and elsewhere in the country have clearly shown. No amount of American lives and money can erase that legitimacy gap. It is clear that the Iraqi government is unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to reach a political settlement that will end the violence, and that is why I supported the amendment to this supplemental spending bill that would set a start date for our withdrawal from Iraq. It is important for us to take decisive action to end our combat involvement in Iraq and refocus our efforts on destroying al Qaeda and eliminating the conditions that breed international terrorism and refocusing our resources on pressing domestic and international needs. While we continue our efforts to extricate our troops from Iraq, we must also prepare to help them once they return home and begin transitioning to the civilian world. I strongly support the provision in this bill that expands the education benefits veterans receive under the GI bill to restore the promise of a full, 4-year college education, and make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of an American economic recovery, just like the veterans of World War II were. This bill also contains provisions to help America's most vulnerable citizens survive the current de facto recession our country is experiencing. The bill extends unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every State as well as an additional 13 weeks in States with high unemployment. Also included in this bill is the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008 (H.R. 5613), which places a moratorium on seven Medicaid regulations that would cut services to seniors, families, and those with disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers. These are compassionate measures that are fully off-set, and I am glad they are in this bill. However, I can't help but observe, Mr. Speaker, that these needs would have been met long ago if our country had not been forced to waste billions of dollars on a war of choice that should never have been fought. I will continue to do all I can to help end our involvement in Iraq and redirect our Nation's priorities and resources where they belong--on meeting the needs of our people.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, I am proud that the United States and Israel have built a strong, unique, and special relationship. It took the United States, under President Harry Truman's leadership, only 11 minutes after Israel had been declared a state to officially welcome her into the community of nations. After, President Truman said, ``I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it--not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.'' The creation of the State of Israel was a bold step in May of 1948. The first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once said that ``courage is a special kind of knowledge: the knowledge of how to fear what ought to be feared and how not to fear what ought not to be feared.'' It is from such courage that the State of Israel was formed and from which Israel continues to maintain its vibrant and strong democracy today. We can all learn examples from the struggles that the citizens have endured and the grief they have overcome to remain a democratic outpost in the Middle East. The achievements of the Israeli people and their government over the past 60 years are remarkable. For instance, when it comes to education, well over half of Israelis aged 20- 24 are enrolled in one of the country's institutions of post-secondary or higher education. Healthcare is guaranteed by law--for all Israelis--from infancy to old age. As for agriculture, the country produces almost 70 percent of its food requirements--from land that was once not remotely capable of sustaining crops or livestock. Finally, despite the growing demand for expansion of farmland and industrial centers, the Israeli government has set aside land for 150 nature reserves and 65 national parks throughout the country, with several hundred additional sites in planning. While these achievements are each remarkable in their own right, they are only a sample of what Israel has accomplished in a mere 60 years. As a lifelong supporter of our most important ally in the Middle East, I have had the pleasure of traveling to Israel. These visits have only reinforced my strong conviction that Israel, like all states in the world, has the right to respond in self-defense to protect her sovereignty and citizens. As chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Special Intelligence Oversight Panel, I know that Israel has been a loyal and cooperative partner in combating terrorism. Our country has a lot to learn from Israel and her experiences with acts of terrorism. As Israel continues to face threats from her neighbors, America must continue to stand with her. Additionally, a strong American relationship with Israel is essential for regional stability. We have a responsibility to help Israel stand up to and prevent terrorist attacks. Last year, I supported $2.4 billion in military assistance for Israel, and will continue to support additional U.S. foreign assistance for Israel. I also strongly believe that the United States must remain actively engaged in ensuring a peaceful settlement of the current conflict between the two parties. It is essential that the United States become more involved diplomatically to help diffuse conflicts like the one in Lebanon two summers ago and help move the parties to a broader settlement that will defang the militant and terrorist factions and will result in a peaceful Middle East and a viable two states. Much work remains unfinished. We are all troubled by the daily rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza against innocent civilians in Israel. Israel clearly has a right to defend herself against these deadly attacks. This has been yet another unique year for Israel, full of challenges that were admirably met. I am pleased to join with the Jewish community of New Jersey and all Americans in celebrating 60 years of Israel's existence as a beacon of democracy and hope in the Middle East. I look forward to future anniversaries, and to the day when Israel and her citizens can live in peace without fear.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, recently I met with veterans in New Jersey, some of whom had served in the Second World War, and earlier in the day that I met with them, I had returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq with Representative Thompson of California, a colleague on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I told these veterans that they would not recognize this war in Iraq. From a technological standpoint, the kind of battlefield sensors and intelligence analysis capabilities available to our troops in Iraq are so far beyond anything that was fielded by the military in the Second World War or, in fact, even in more recent conflicts. That's the good news. The other thing that they would not recognize, the not-so-good news, is that unlike say the Second World War, the United States cannot control the outcome in Iraq or achieve success because we do not know who the enemy is and what constitutes success. While part of our trip involved classified briefings in which we examined how the intelligence community is supporting our troops, we also had the opportunity to meet at length with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to discuss the situation on the ground, including the status of the political reconciliation among Iraq's warring factions. The two gave a positive report and spoke of a great deal of progress. Two outstanding patriots, a good general, a good diplomat, but the presentation that America is making progress toward a successful outcome in Iraq makes sense only if we continually redefine what we mean by success. And for over 5 years, we've been redefining both our rationale for invading Iraq and how we propose to measure success. First, it was to go after those responsible for 9/11. Then it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and track down his WMDs. And then it was to bring stability to the region. And then it was to bring free elections and bring all the warring factions together in a model of democracy for the Middle East. Then it was to create a road to peace in Israel through Iraq. And then it was to give the Iraqis more time to organize their government. Now, it seems to be to reduce the number of members of al Qaeda in Iraq, the AQI, which was, of course, zero before it all started. These repeated rationalizations and redefinitions serve no one's interests, particularly the interests of our men and women of our Armed Forces who we've sent in harm's way in Iraq. In Baghdad, I met with active duty soldiers, including some from New Jersey. American troops are performing superbly in Iraq under difficult conditions. As I told them, they, and the New Jersey National Guard members who will be deploying later this year, deserve not just our gratitude, but all the support they need to do their job, the wherewithal they need to do their job, and I would say just as much support when they return home as veterans. Of course, we want our soldiers to succeed. We want the Iraqis to be peaceful and prosperous. We want terrorists and other enemies of the United States to be defanged and defeated. But for that to happen, it must be in Iraq, at least the Iraqis, the Iraqi political factions who must take the lead in ending their civil war. It's impossible to hide the fact that the limited security gains achieved since last fall have not been matched by political reconciliation on the part of the Iraqis. Unfortunately, Iraq's central government continues to lack legitimacy in the eyes of its people, as the recent combat in Basra and Baghdad have clearly shown. It is clear that the Iraqi government is, so far anyway, unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to reach a political settlement that will end the violence. One of the reasons I voted against the war resolution to go into Iraq in the first place was that Iraq was not a threat to the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and that attacking Iraq would unleash forces we could not control. I was not alone in making those arguments, which tragically have been validated by events. My latest trip to Iraq has, sadly, reinforced my belief that success is being redefined only once again, and what we need to do is to take decisive action to end our combat involvement in Iraq and refocus our efforts on destroying al Qaeda and eliminating the conditions that breed international terrorism and refocusing our resources on pressing domestic and international needs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3221, the Foreclosure Prevention Act. At the end of last year, home foreclosure rates rose to the highest level in 20 years. Every day more than 7,000 people file for foreclosure, and it is predicted that predatory lending practices and sub prime mortgages will cause one in every thirty-three homeowners to foreclose on their mortgages in the next 2 years. This is not an issue that is merely affecting those who have defaulted on their mortgages and their lenders; it is having a ripple effect throughout the economy. It has resulted in a nationwide decrease in housing prices of 12.4 percent, and 10 percent of Americans now owe more money on their mortgages than their homes are worth. It has caused a decrease in consumer confidence and corresponding decrease in consumer spending. It has contributed to a steep increase in job losses in housing related industries such as manufacturing, construction and related industries. These job losses combined with the loss of consumer confidence could reduce economic activity by over 150 billion dollars in 2008. This is a crisis, and it is time, it is past time, that the Federal Government step in and help those that are suffering. H.R. 3221 would provide mortgage refinancing assistance to keep families in their homes, protect neighboring home values, and help stabilize the housing market. It would expand the Federal Housing Administration to help borrowers who are at risk of losing their homes to refinance into lower-cost government-insured mortgages that they can afford to repay. H.R. 3221 ensures that this will be done responsibly, by requiring lenders and mortgage investors to take significant losses in order to participate in this program and by requiring borrowers to share a portion of any resale of a refinanced home with the government. H.R. 3221 also provides 11 billion dollars in tax incentives to help Americans purchase a first home or hold onto the ones that they already have. This includes tax credits to first-time homebuyers, an additional 10 billion dollars in mortgage revenue bonds for states, and improves access to low-income housing. It also includes a provision that I wrote to allow homeowners who currently do not itemize their Federal tax returns to take an additional standard deduction for the state and local property taxes that they pay. The Temporary Tax Relief Act creates an additional standard deduction of $350 for single filers and $700 for joint filers for state and local real property taxes paid or accrued. This legislation will complement efforts that have already been implemented on the state and federal level to help address the housing crisis. I am proud that several organizations in my home state of New Jersey have stepped in to provide services and assistance to New Jerseyans who are at risk of losing their homes. One of the shining examples of this is Legal Services of New Jersey. LSNJ created the Anti-Predatory Lending Project 5 years ago to provide legal services to borrowers victimized by predatory lenders. LSNJ's hardworking lawyers have helped almost 500 families who were facing foreclosure receive legal assistance. I would like to commend LSNJ for the work that they have done on behalf of the residents of my central New Jersey district and for all New Jerseyans who have been at risk of losing their homes. H.R. 3221 and the companion bill that the House of Representatives will be considering, H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act are a bold step towards addressing the mortgage crisis and the resulting economic downturn, and I urge my colleagues to support them.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. Today all of our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Burma. The deaths and destruction caused by the cyclone Nargis which hit Burma over the weekend are still being discovered. Recent reports indicate that maybe 10,000 were killed and hundreds of thousands left without shelter and clean water. Yet despite this horrific natural disaster, the Burmese junta has announced it will go ahead with the scheduled sham constitutional referendum this Saturday. Today, we are considering our resolution to condemn the Burmese regime's undemocratic constitution and the scheduled sham referendum to legitimize that constitution. As the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 317, I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, who are both lead sponsors of the resolution, for their support in helping to move this. We sometimes ask, and our constituents sometimes ask, whether governments are relevant to our daily lives, to their daily lives. Well, certainly here we see a negative example of what a difference a government can make. The ruling junta did not warn the people, so I understand, of the oncoming cyclone. They have done little to provide humanitarian assistance. I strongly encourage our State Department to heed the calls of the international community and provide whatever emergency humanitarian assistance the Government of Burma will accept. I do recall visiting Burma several decades ago following an earthquake that devastated Pagan, and the willful unwillingness of the military dictatorship then to accept international help. I have long been interested in Burma and the future of the Burmese people. I first traveled there some decades ago, and I was struck by the amazing damage and destruction that a despotic antidemocratic government can inflict on an economy, on a country and on the people. Under military rule since 1962, Burma was once called the ``rice bowl of Asia'' because of its rich resources, its fertile land and its productive people. But with the ruling junta, its promise and its potential have steadily declined. This promising country's resources have been channeled into supporting the military, and it is now one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Prior to this week's scheduled sham constitutional referendum, the junta has allowed an election once before. In 1990 the National League For Democracy, the NLD, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won an election landslide. Yet despite the NLD winning four out of every five parliamentary seats, the regime locked up the NLD winners, and to this day Aung San Suu Kyi remains under arrest. For her bravery, courage and her fight for true democracy in her home country, she has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Yet 18 years later, this Nobel laureate remains locked away. Those are among the reasons that this House today is considering, and should pass, this resolution to condemn the Burmese regime's undemocratic constitution and the sham referendum to legitimize it. The Burmese people are determined to enjoy the same rights and freedoms that so many across the world, take for granted. The heroic efforts of the opposition leader and Peace Prize winner and others have given hope to victims of terrible oppression, and they deserve our support. This resolution sends a strong signal to the people of Burma that we stand with them in their struggle for democracy. The resolution denounces the one-sided totalitarian and illegal act by the junta to try to legitimize military rule through their unilaterally drafted constitution. The monks who were detained following the September Saffron Revolution and all other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience should be released. The resolution urges President Bush to call on the world community not to accept or recognize the junta's constitution. When several of us Members of Congress held a meeting here of the Human Rights Caucus on the Saffron Revolution to hear testimony from the monks who stood up in a nonviolent way to one of the most despotic regimes in the world, the monks told a gripping and heart-rending tale. They called on Congress to approve this resolution as soon as possible, and today the House answers that call. Earlier this year, for a joint session of Congress, I invited a young man, Richard Chio, a refugee from Burma and a resident of my congressional district, to sit as my guest here in the gallery of this House. He sat and watched the State of the Union address, having resettled only months before in the United States with the help of Lutheran Social Services of New Jersey. He told me that this day in Washington ``was like living in a dream.'' It was the most amazing day in his life to see that a government like ours could exist, because he knew nothing like that in Burma. Richard's story and the countless others remind us of why now, more than ever, especially following the devastation of this cyclone in Burma, the people of the United States need to stand with the people of Burma and oppose the junta. This referendum later this week would be a sham, a fake, pretend; it would be bogus, fraudulent, spurious, phony. Use whatever word you want. But it would not be democratic. It would not be to the benefit of the people of Burma who want a true democracy. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support and the many cosponsors of this resolution. I also want to thank Eric Richardson with Mr. Berman and Dennis Halpin with the ranking member for their assistance in preparing this resolution. I also want to thank the U.S. Campaign for Burma and Jen Quigley for the excellent work they do every day and have done year in and year out to promote democracy in Burma. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in countries all over the world, journalists are assisted, in fact, often dependent on local assistance, such as Dith Pran was to Sydney Schanberg, who was working for The New York Times. Such assistance often goes unrecognized. But Dith Pran did not go unrecognized. His life would be noteworthy if only because of his survival. After the foreign military forces left southeast Asia, and horrific genocide and slaughter enveloped Cambodia, Dith Pran faced a situation that is hard to believe. He would be noteworthy also because of his excellent work as a photographer and photojournalist, but he is most noteworthy and truly admirable because of his work to bring the horrors of the genocide of Cambodia and of genocide anywhere in the world to the attention of the public. It was my honor and good fortune to know Dith Pran. He covered stories and events in the New Jersey and New York area, and I saw him fairly often. He even accomplished the challenging achievement of sometimes making me look good on film. He was hardly a movie star, but he was always cheerful. In his daily contacts, looking through those smiling eyes, it would be hard to imagine the horrors that were back in his mind. For months each year, after hours, on weekends, before students, before policymakers, before any audience that would listen, he used his experiences effectively to teach the horrors that humans can do to humans and to work for justice, truth and reconciliation in Cambodia and other countries around the world. After each mass murder and genocide in history, some have said ``Never again.'' After the Nazi death camps, after Rwanda, after each genocide, we say never again. Let us all hope, that the example of Dith Pran and his story will help us take action so that truly never again we will see the kind of horror that Dith Pran saw.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 49, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Letter Carriers Appreciation Day. In 1775, Members of the Second Continental Congress established the Post Office Department, the predecessor of the Postal Service and the second oldest Federal department or agency in the United States. For the past two centuries, the United States Postal Service has evolved and changed as the United States has grown. Today, the Postal Service delivers hundreds of millions of messages each day to more than 141 million homes and businesses. Behind the delivery of each of these letters is the hard work and dedication of a letter carrier. Letter carriers deliver more than 43 tons of mail per year, which averages out to about 2,300 letters, cards, and circulars per carrier per day. Six days a week, rain or shine, hurricane or blizzard, our Nation's 705,000 carrier letter carriers and 98,000 non-carrier employees faithfully contribute to our economic strength and vitality through their timely and efficient delivery of mail. I have spent hours walking mail routes with the letter carriers in New Jersey. I have seen first hand how dedicated postal employees are to ensuring the timely and safe delivery of mail and tying together our local communities. These letter carriers should be applauded for their service to all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 49 and acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the letter carriers in your congressional district.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 2008, America lost one of its greatest scientific minds. Dr. John Archibald Wheeler influenced generations of scientists (including me) and his imprint on the field of physics and our collective understanding of the universe we inhabit cannot be overstated. Wheeler began his career in the company of men whose names are well known to history--Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Wheeler, who earned his Ph.D. in physics at age 21, went to Denmark a year after earning his degree to study under Bohr, who at the time was on the cutting edge of nuclear research. It was only after Bohr fled Denmark in 1939--just months before the Nazi occupation of the country--that Wheeler learned of the research Bohr and others had been conducting into the possibilities and ramifications of nuclear fission. Ultimately, Wheeler would join Robert Oppenheimer and others on the Manhattan Project, turning America into the world's first nuclear power. Later, Wheeler would play a key role the development of thermonuclear weapons and become an advocate of the war in Vietnam and of the creation of a ballistic missile defense system for the United States. But for all his work on weapons of war, his passion was trying to understand the workings of the universe. We owe the term ``black hole'' to Wheeler, who initially resisted the idea of the existence of these stellar phenomena but was ultimately persuaded of their existence by the mathematical work of Dr. David Finklestein and others. In this, Wheeler demonstrated the traits of the best scientists: a willingness to challenge, and ultimately change, his views based on the facts and evidence. When he reached Princeton University's mandatory retirement age in 1976, Wheeler was not ready to walk away from the profession he loved. He moved to Texas, taking up residence at the University of Texas at Austin and continued his investigation into the workings of the universe, seeking to understand ``how everything fits together.'' He continued to teach, lecture, and write for many more years, and his influence on at least two generations of physicists will be felt for generations to come. Dr. Wheeler's wife of 72 years, the late Janette Hegner Wheeler, passed away in October 2007 at age 99. The Wheelers are survived by their three children, Ms. Lahnston and Letitia Wheeler Ufford, both of Princeton; James English Wheeler of Ardmore, Pa.; 8 grandchildren, 16 great-grandchildren, 6 step-grandchildren and 11 step-great grandchildren. I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring John Wheeler through H. Res. 1118. We can honor him best by recommitting ourselves to making America the world leader in scientific research and achievements, and I will certainly do all I can to make that another of Dr. Wheeler's lasting achievements.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 195, I was detained and was not able to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to the Beach Protection Act. For the last 20 years, my colleagues in the scientific community have issued warnings that the release of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth's climate in ways that are both expensive and deadly. And nowhere is this change more evident than in the changing habitat of our world's oceans. Science has demonstrated that global change is already causing the sea level to rise. It is predicted that in my home State of New Jersey, the sea level rise will cause a loss of 7 inches to 2 feet of our coastline by the end of the decade. Of course, changes in the acidity of the ocean from increased carbon is another effect. And as the oceans continue to change, factors that are known to affect water quality along our coastline, such as flooding, storms and erosion, will, of course, occur. The Inslee amendment simply requires the Environmental Protection Agency to study the effects of the global climate change on our Nation's coastlines. The amendment will help States, local communities and Congress better address the challenges, prepare for the changes, and it will call attention to the steps we need to take to prevent further damage. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I commend my colleague for preparing and introducing this amendment. I yield back.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008. This is a bill that is optional for counties. It's to encourage counties and States to do the right thing. We should all want national standards of accessibility, reliability and auditability for our elections. This is an emergency stop-gap measure to see that we achieve as much of that as possible before the November elections. The principle is simple. Anything of value should be auditable. Votes are valuable. They should be audited so that voters can have the confidence that each vote is recorded the way the voter intended. In too many places around the United States, votes are not audited. In too many places around the United States, they are not even auditable. Voters leave the polling places wondering if their vote will be counted as they intended and election losers and their supporters are left wondering if they can believe the results. Already in this primary season, there have been numerous, numerous problems, questions, and unresolved disputes. In county after county, in State after State, electronic voting systems have failed in many ways, failure to start-up in the morning, a mismatch between the electronic count and the end-of-day printout, failed memory cards, and on and on and on. In too many places, the irregularities can not be resolved. There is no way to resolve them. There is no way to know because there is no record of the voter's intentions. This legislation would reimburse counties and States for allowing voters to inspect paper-based records of their vote, in other words, paper ballots. That would not only make it possible for audits, but this legislation would go further and reward States for putting in place procedures to conduct those audits. This would go a long way toward restoring confidence in the process. There is still time before November to secure our election system. If our Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act is enacted, localities could choose to convert to paper ballot voting systems, offer emergency paper ballots if machines fail, and to conduct audits to confirm the accuracy of the electronic tallies. I want to stress that this is optional. We took great pains to accept the suggestions of the minority party, to take suggestions of election officials, to take suggestions of people all over the country, lawyers and others who have looked at elections in detail. We simplified this so that counties could not object that we were making them do something that we weren't going to support them on. This is optional. We have simplified it as much as possible so that it could be implemented in time for this year's election, and it could be. This modest bill simply entitles jurisdictions to reimbursement for the costs to conduct fully auditable, fully audited elections. It will encourage States and counties that want to do the right thing on behalf of their voters. But time is of the essence. If we don't take action immediately, we will not leave enough time for States that wish to opt to do so before the November election. Voters will lose further confidence in the system, and candidates will leave on election night wondering if they can trust the results. Common Cause wrote: ``The security and reliability problems with electronic machines have been well documented. Both the State of California with the Top to Bottom Review and the State of Ohio with their study have documented numerous security vulnerabilities and have systems and have taken action to protect voters. Additionally, a number of academic and public policy experts have recommended that the shortcomings of these systems be addressed. Finally, there have been a number of incidents in which voters have been disenfranchised and election outcomes thrown into doubt because the machines have simply failed to work properly.'' The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law writes: ``Reports of machine problems during States' recent Presidential primary elections provide a preview of potentially widespread machine failure and disenfranchisement in November.'' They and others go on to argue that this simple, straightforward legislation will allow many counties and States around the country to address these problems in time for their November election so that we can have a truly reliable, accessible and auditable election that voters can believe in. I yield back the balance of my time with thanks to the gentlelady from California for her diligent work in putting together such a good piece of legislation.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady. I just wanted to address a couple of the points that the gentleman from Ohio made. The first is we don't in this legislation tell the counties how to run their elections. We leave this up to them, and it is entirely optional. There are States around the country who have instituted complete auditable election systems in a matter of months. If a county or a State feels they cannot do it, then I would advise them not to opt in to this program. But we believe they can. Let's leave that to them rather than as the gentleman from Ohio would, try to decide for them whether this is something that they would want. We believe from a number of indications that this will be useful in many counties and States around the country.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, the States and counties still have the responsibility for the mechanics of the elections. All we're saying is, if they put in place procedures to make them auditable, and procedures to audit the votes, we will assist them in the cost. There are many things the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said we could be dealing with, and, indeed, we are not dealing with questions of registration and purging of names on registration lists and absentee voting and the openness of the tabulation phase of results. We are just talking about what happens in the voting booth, so that each voter will be able to verify, on paper, that her vote or his vote is recorded the way they intended, and then, those voter verified records be used to audit the results. It's that simple. I can promise you that if jurisdictions don't take these steps, there will be many questions around the country that cannot be resolved. This is a simple, straightforward way to take care of it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join you today in standing up for working families in America by opposing the flawed fast track procedures. When the President sent the Colombia Trade Agreement to Congress earlier this week, he started a clock for the agreement's consideration. He hoped that by forcing Congress to act, he would be able to win approval of the Colombia FTA. Yet, in reality, he only exposed one of the many problems that fast track trade negotiation authority created. Today, Congress is sending a clear message to the President that we will not consider the Colombia Free Trade Agreement or any other FTA's on his time table. We will not be bullied. Congress is a coequal branch of government. As you may know, I have long opposed the granting of fast track authority to the President because it removed Congress from shaping and drafting trade agreements, the timing of their consideration, and allowed Congress only an up or down vote on unamendable trade agreements. In doing so Congress abdicated our essential responsibility to our nation's citizens. I was pleased that this dangerous fast track authority expired last summer and has not been renewed. As I hear from people from across central New Jersey, protecting workers' rights, human rights, and the environment are not secondary or extraneous concerns; they are central to what the United States stands for. I support trade that elevates the quality of life for citizens all over the world. The United States, and indeed the entire world, can benefit from increased trade, but increased trade in itself is not the goal we seek. Rather, we seek an improved quality of life for our people and advancement of other people's well-being. Additionally, even on the merits I am very concerned by the Colombian agreement. As I have said before, trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect our natural environment. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities, they are about values. Trade agreements state what constitutes acceptable behavior in worker's rights, environmental matters, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. We must continue to demand improvements in our trade policy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. Think about it. Ranging from the awe-inspiring volcanic landscape of the craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho to the majestic White Mountain National Recreation Area in Alaska, the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System protects some of the most spectacular landscapes in America. Altogether it protects 26 million acres of America's diverse public lands from Alaskan tundra to red-rock wilderness, deep river canyons to ocean coasts, to American Indian cliff dwellings, and our Nation's oldest trails. These sites provide Americans with unique venues for recreation, for wildlife viewing, for exploring history, for scientific research, and for a wide range of traditional uses. H.R. 2016 would ensure that all 800 sites that comprise the NLCS remain a cohesive and protected system for generations to come. Now, currently these are recognized only through BLM administrative regulations. There's no guarantee that these beautiful sites, that this system, will continue to exist even 5 years from now. President Lyndon Johnson put it well. He said, ``If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow, we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it.'' By making the NLCS Federal statute, we will ensure that future generations will enjoy these national treasures, and I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Grijalva's legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I am pleased to join the Speaker of the House today as an original cosponsor of this important legislation to address the rights of the people of Tibet. Across the globe, people are speaking out in support of the people of Tibet. And today, Congress is making a strong statement. And no one outside Tibet has been more clear and more eloquent than the Speaker of the House. I recently had the honor to join the Speaker as a member of a congressional delegation to India. We were with the spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and we saw and heard thousands of Tibetan refugees cheering America, I'm pleased to say, but pleading and pleading with us not to forget Tibet. Tibet has been under the heavy hand of China for almost five decades, and the situation has deteriorated with China brutally suppressing Tibetans and systematically and relentlessly eradicating Tibetan culture. Our delegation was moved to see and hear the pleadings of Tibetans of all ages who have braved Himalayan crossings to escape oppression, some weeks ago, some years ago. And the Dalai Lama gives them hope and calls on the world not to forget those who have fled and those who are left in Tibet. And we, too, should give them hope. I have in my office a crayon-drawn Tibetan flag given to me during our delegation's visit to the Tibetan Children's Village, and I keep this flag in my office because it reminds me of the human toll of the situation. Children and adults flee the villages of Tibet and cross the highest range of mountains in the world to reach the promise of a life where they can preserve their culture and have freedom. The journey is treacherous, but children try to escape the oppression in Tibet. I am pleased that all the members of this important trip joined the Speaker in introducing this resolution. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the Chinese Government needs to end the violent crackdown on nonviolent Tibetan protesters. Furthermore, it is long past time for the Chinese Government to begin, without preconditions, a dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and ensure that human rights and dignity of all Tibetans are protected, to address the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people, to safeguard the people and their distinctive identity, to support economic development, cultural preservation, health care, education and environmental sustainability. This important resolution reminds the world and China of our commitment to the people of Tibet.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, earlier this year, six remarkable New Jersey public servants retired from the Middletown Township Police Department. Let me take a few moments to tell you a little bit about each of these men. Lieutenant William C. Best joined the Middletown Township Police Department in June 1971. Bill spent 20 years in the Patrol Division, working daily to help keep his community safe, and moving up through the ranks in the department until becoming a Patrol Lieutenant in April 2006. After more than 36 years on the force, Bill decided it was time to spend more time with his wife of 43 years, Sandra, their children, Kim and Amanda, and their two grandchildren--Molly and Teddy. I should also note that Bill's service to his country included a stint in the Navy from November 1961 through November 1963. Bill was a witness to history during this time, as he served aboard the aircraft carrier Saratoga during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Lieutenant Stanley Malinowski joined the department in December 1972, and over his nearly 36 year career he held multiple assignments in the Patrol Division and the Community Relations/DARE program. Like Lieutenant Best, Lieutenant Malinowski served his country in the Navy before joining the police department. Stanley is a Vietnam veteran, having served from 1965 to 1969. He spent three of his four years in the Navy aboard the guided missile destroyer USS H.B. Wilson, with multiple tours in Vietnam. Detective First Class Barry Grimm joined the force in June 1971, and he held numerous assignments in the Patrol and Detective Divisions over the course of his more than 36 years with the department. Barry was one of the department's arson investigation experts, and was an instructor at the National Fire Academy for more than 20 years. Barry has also been a member of the Middletown Township Fire Department since 1968 and served as its chief in 1999. Barry is looking forward to spending more time with his wife of 36 years, Birgit Mosehach Grimm, their four children, Amy, Michael, Christopher and Shawn, his son-in-law Patrick and daughter-in-law Bethany, and his two grandchildren Owen and Sophie. Detective First Class Richard Rast joined the force in November 1977. During his more than 30 years on the force, Detective Rast served in the Patrol Division, the Community Relations Division, the Traffic Division, and the Detective Division. Detective Rast is a member of the Eastern State Criminal Investigators Association and the New Jersey Vehicle Theft Investigators Association. Like Lieutenants Best and Maliowski, Detective Rast is a Navy veteran, having served during the Vietnam era between January 1969 and November 1971. Rich and his wife Gloria have been married 38 years. They have two children, Bonnie and Sarah, and four grandchildren--Rebecca, Julia, and Brooke. Corporal Frank Holden joined the department in August 1987 and retired on December 31, 2007. During his 20 year career in the Patrol Division, Corporal Holden received numerous awards for his work, both from the department and from community groups, including the Women's Center of Monmouth County, the American Legion Post 338 of Middletown, and the Middletown Fraternal Order of Police. Corporal Holden has been extremely active in his community as a fundraiser for multiple charities, including The Rainbow Foundation, Jason's Dreams for Kids, The Special Olympics, The Lance Armstrong Foundation, and Victory Junction Gang Camp. Frank and his wife Carol have lived in the Locust section of Middletown for the past 16 years. They have three children-- Jennifer, Sara, and Adam. Corporal Glenn Morehead joined the department in December 1980 and retired in December 2007. He received multiple awards during his long career, and his commitment to his community extended well beyond his work as a police officer. Corporal Morehead served over 20 years each with Leonardo First Aid Company, the Lincroft Fire Company, and the Middletown Township Fire Academy. In July 2008, Corporal Morehead and his wife will celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. The Moreheads also have a son, Matthew. I think it's important for their neighbors and the citizens of their community to understand just how fortunate Middletown has been to have had these six men in public service for so long. For decades, they helped keep Middletown and its residents safe from criminals, fires, and disasters--both natural and man-made. Their involvement in the community has enriched lives and helped make Middletown the wonderful place to live that it is today. As each of these men and their families begin a new chapter in their lives, I want them to know that they have my sincere thanks for their long years of service and my best wishes for the future. Congratulations and well done.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 5501. This important legislation reauthorizes and expands the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). I have long supported this bold initiative that has made the U.S. a leader in this critical health and moral issue of our time. PEPFAR has shown to the world our nation's vision and compassion in addressing this healthcare crisis. Five years ago, an estimated 31 million people were living with HIV/ AIDS worldwide, anti-retroviral drug treatments were expensive, and approximately 8,200 people were infected with HIV/AIDS every day. I have heard from a number of my constituents about their support for continued U.S. efforts to combat AIDS and the spread of HIV around the globe. It is obvious that Americans care. In the absence of a cure for AIDS, this worldwide epidemic continues to spread at an alarming rate. That is why I am pleased that H.R. 5501 makes an important transition from emergency relief to the establishment of long-term and sustainable AIDS relief programs. The legislation also works to better integrate the tuberculosis and malaria programs with the HIV/AIDS programs. This is essential because in sub-Saharan Africa tuberculosis is the leading killer of individuals with HIV/AIDS. Since the creation of this program, the United States has invested more than $19 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The results have been striking. By the end of 2007, the United States had helped provide anti-retroviral drug treatments to approximately 1.5 million people with AIDS, supported care for 6.6 million--including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children--and helped to prevent more than 157,000 infant infections. H.R. 5501 greatly expands our efforts abroad by authorizing a total of $50 billion over five years. This total includes $41 billion for HIV/AIDS programs, $5 billion for malaria programs, and $4 billion for tuberculosis programs. This dramatic increase in funding will help partner countries continue to identify and meet targets for treatment and prevention. Additionally, the funding will help build and strengthen the existing health systems in host countries. While I support the underlying bill, I do have some concern about one specific issue. I have long been concerned by the restrictions placed on how PEPFAR funds can be spent. I have opposed the requirement that one-third of the funds be spent on abstinence-only education because it has not proven to be a successful way to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS. A report by the Government Accountability Office found that this restriction tied the local hands of public health workers. I believe that PEPFAR funds should be spent on the most effective HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention strategies available. That is why I am pleased that H.R. 5501 removes the requirement that one-third of the funds be spent on abstinence education. As this bill works through the legislative process, I hope that any language in the bill that might be interpreted to limit funding to programs that are compliant with the global gag rule be removed. Madam Chairman, our country has done more to end the spread of HIV/ AIDS in the last five years than any nation in the history of the world. We must continue. This bill represents a reasonable expansion of our efforts and makes the important transition to permanent HIV/AIDS relief. I urge my colleagues to support this investment in the health of our global community and in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I am pleased to rise to say that not only do we have enough time to debate this, but we have a very good, well-structured bill in front of us. It is an important role of the Federal Government to look after the safety and the security of the American people. This bill does that. It is a well-structured bill that gives telecom companies the opportunity they have asked for to defend themselves in court. It provides for a congressional commission that will look at how electronic surveillance has been conducted and will make recommendations. It includes a reasonable expiration date to keep Congress involved in the oversight of this. And I would argue most importantly this legislation provides prior involvement of the court in all intercepts of communications of Americans. Critically important. Here are the facts. This bill gives our intelligence community the flexibility they need to collect information on our enemies while protecting the American people in every aspect. And it mandates extensive reviews and reporting requirements on the electronic surveillance programs in question. It rejects the President's efforts to redefine the relationship between the people and their government, a very key point. I commend the Speaker, the leader, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee for negotiating with a firm tone and a principled approach to give us very good legislation, a very good bill despite the fact that they've had to work with the relentless drumbeat of propaganda and disinformation orchestrated by the administration in this matter. I commend them for producing such good legislation in such difficult circumstances.