Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as I travel my district in central New Jersey, I am constantly confronted with the growth of these communities. Young families are moving into new houses and school principals get phone calls daily from parents who are moving into the area. The opening days of school are challenging for school principals. Some schools in my New Jersey district have kindergartens that are twice the size of the senior class. Communities across the State and the Nation are struggling, struggling to address the critical need to build new schools and renovate existing ones to make up for years of deferred maintenance and to accommodate rising school enrollment. Urban and rural and high growth suburban areas all face different and difficult school modernization problems. The General Accounting Office estimates that $112 billion is needed just to repair existing schools across the Nation. Twenty-four hundred new public schools will be needed by 2003 to accommodate 1.3 million new students and to relieve overcrowding. With schools bursting at the seams, new schools being constructed every year, property taxes are reaching astronomical rates. These growing communities need relief. Communities in my New Jersey district are voting down needed construction because they cannot afford even higher property taxes. That is why, together with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), I am working for legislation to ease the burden for fast growing communities as they construct new schools. The interest on school construction bonds is a big item. Even on a short-term, 15-year tax exempt bond, the interest on the bond may be an additional 65 percent of the value. Under our legislation, the Federal government would provide tax credits equal to the interest the local communities would pay to investors on these bonds. This emergency Federal assistance would help communities like mine and others across the country meet the needs of our children. Let me give my colleagues an example from my district to illustrate that we are facing a serious situation. In Montgomery Township, Somerset County, in 1990, their school enrollment was about 1,500 students. Now Montgomery has to provide seats for 3,500 students, an increase of 134 percent in 10 years. Enrollment is expected to rise another 1,500 students over the next 5 years. The residents of Montgomery have been very supportive of their school system. However, the strain of paying for an annual operating budget coupled with the payment for new buildings is testing the pocketbooks of even the most ardent supporters of public education. They need our help. In some towns in my district, there is now the added expense to rebuild and repair after Hurricane Floyd. These days school construction and modernization also includes technology infrastructure. Our schools need to keep up to date on technology to ensure our students are ready for the jobs of the 21st century. Employers depend on talent, skills, and creativity of their workforces for their success. Companies, communities, and students all benefit from a vital and a successful educational system. Many high-tech firms in my district in central New Jersey already invest in the local schools. They have much to offer, especially in technical areas of science and math. The New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce has a program called Tech Corps New Jersey which recruits business volunteers with expertise in computer technology to work with schools that need assistance in the area of education technology. I believe we need to encourage these partnerships where businesses can invest in their local communities. Businesses can easily help schools keep up to date with their technology infrastructure. The E-rate, which supports discounted internet wiring and services to schools and libraries, is a good example of effective Federal local partnership which can help finance technology infrastructure in our schools. Certainly local taxpayers bear the responsibility for educating their children, and local taxpayers shoulder most of the cost, but the education of our youth is a national responsibility, similar to national defense, and it is time the Federal Government steps up and accepts our responsibility to local districts for the education of our children.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Guglielmo Marconi's historic radio transmission from the North Tower of the Twin Lights Lighthouse in Highlands, NJ. WINLAB, an industry-sponsored wireless research laboratory at Rutgers University, is sponsoring a ``Marconi Day'' celebration at the transmission site in Highlands on September 30, 1999. Marconi, the inventor of the wireless telegraph, was invited to America by James Gordon Bennett, the publisher of the New York Herald, to publicize the 1899 America's Cup Races and to demonstrate the wireless telegraph. The confident Marconi promised New York reporters that, ``We will be able to send the details of the yacht racing to New York as accurately and as quickly as if you could telephone them. The distance is nothing.'' The first wireless messages actually did not report the America's Cup Races but rather followed the progress of Commodore George Dewey's victorious return from the Spanish-American War along the Hudson River. The transmission between Twin Lights Beacon and the Navy's Great White Fleet on September 30, 1899 marked the first demonstration of practical wireless telegraphy in our history. Marconi became a national hero when the wireless telegraph, known simply as a ``Marconi'', was required on all sea-going ships and was responsible for saving many lives at sea, including 705 survivors of the Titanic. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1909. The centennial celebration features distinguished speakers, a reception and ceremonial reenactment, and a celebration of WINLAB's 10 year contribution to wireless communication. A ceremony and re- enactment will take place at the Twin Lights above Sandy Hook. Antique radio equipment will be displayed at Twin Lights, which commands a magnificent view of Sandy Hook and the entrance to New York Harbor. The evening concludes with a river-view dinner in the town of Highlands to celebrate WINLAB's 10th anniversary. Rutgers WINLAB, the Wireless Information Network Laboratory, is a particularly appropriate sponsor for this event. WINLAB is an educational institution committed to advancing wireless communications through education and research. For ten years, WINLAB, founded by Dr. David Goodman, has been a National Science Foundation Industry/ University Cooperative Research Center at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. WINLAB is renowned for its role in technology creation, evaluation, education and information exchange. It serves private industry, government agencies, academic and standards organizations. As they share both significant anniversaries and missions, WINLAB honors Marconi for providing the basis for wireless communications and creating the very object of their research. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing WINLAB's commitment to Guglielmo Marconi's vision and continued contribution to wireless technology throughout the world.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, before my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), leaves, I would like to underscore something that he said. I hear from teachers all the time that they say the first many weeks of the school year are spent relearning what the students have lost over the summer; it is a time when the divide between the privileged and the not so privileged students grows wider. The summer is an important time, and I think we should develop programs of summer schools such as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) described. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) very much for his championing education all along. We all look to him because of his experience as a State superintendent, and because of his wisdom in the area of education that really works. The gentleman has said it. We should be outraged. America should be outraged. Here we get near the end of the fiscal year, in fact today is the last day of the fiscal year, we have a number of appropriations bills not yet dealt with and we save the education bill for last. So education gets the scraps in the appropriations process. Inexcusable. The gentleman referred to the school modernization and construction bills. We have to resort to parliamentary procedure, discharge petitions, to even get a debate on the floor. Inexcusable. America should be outraged. I would like to talk for a minute or two, if I may, about teachers and the support that we owe them. We ask a lot of our teachers. We ask a great deal of them. We should give them what they need to do the jobs. As the gentleman knows, many of today's teachers, especially in elementary school, say they do not feel prepared to teach science and math. Science and math classes are the gateway for our children to the opportunities of tomorrow. Twenty-eight percent of New Jersey's science teachers do not have a major or a minor in the subject they teach and a third of math teachers across the country are not licensed to teach math. We need to work on the pipeline to encourage teachers, to get science and math teachers to go into the field, and we need to give them the support once they get there. We need professional development for these teachers. The fact remains that it is not happening as it should. I just received this week a study from the American Association of Physics Teachers under the American Institute of Physics. It showed that only one half of all physics teachers around the country have received even one day of physics training in the past year. Science teachers need classroom support. Teachers talk about their need personally to stop at the local hardware and to fund lab experiments out of their own pockets. These physics teachers say that schools now are spending ten percent less on equipment and supplies in physics classes than they were a decade ago. It is a problem. The gentleman has talked a lot about the need to be connected. Our colleague the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has also spoken about this, the need to be connected to the Internet. Although 90 percent of the schools in this country are connected to the Internet, only one teacher in ten has identified software to help him or her teach their subject in the classroom, to actually use this equipment educationally. If teachers feel unprepared to use the technology, then we are not doing right by them. A recent study by the Department of Education told us that only 20 percent of teachers feel qualified to use modern technology and to teach using computers that are available to them; just 20 percent. Some of us are sponsoring a bill to provide grants for training teachers in how to use and integrate technology in the classroom, and I think all of us here this evening are supporting programs like the Eisenhower funds for training and education of teachers in science and math. We entrust our most precious resources to the teachers. We should equip these teachers. We owe it to the teachers, but even more we owe it to the children of America. We should treat them as professionals, these teachers.

Mr. HOLT. We must keep pushing so education is not the last thing we take up at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan. It is a great pleasure to talk about these things. We do not have occasion to talk about them enough here on the floor of the House. First, I would like to recognize how much the gentleman does in support of science and science education. We all appreciate it. I would like to just add two comments to what the gentleman talked about. One is the importance of research that we do not necessarily recognize the value of at first. Many of our colleagues here in this chamber, many of our family members have had MRIs, magnetic resonance imaging. Most people do not realize this came out of studies on nuclear magnetic resonance, on which I believe the gentleman has worked in the past. This was once regarded as pure research but has turned out to be of very practical value. The return on investment in science is enormous.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and just say that the point I wanted to make was that economists argue about what is the yield on research, the economic yield on dollars spent on research, but they argue about whether it is 20 percent or 30 percent, not whether it is 2 or 3 percent. And it is a sound investment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield a moment to my colleague from New Jersey if he has more to add.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and others in opposing the reorganization of the DOE that is provided in this bill, creating a fiefdom of control of the nuclear establishment that does not include an authority line from the Secretary of Energy. It is a serious problem. Civilian control of our nuclear weapons production facilities is one of the most important responsibilities that we have here. I speak with some experience. For nearly a decade, I helped run a DOE national laboratory. I have seen firsthand the legacy of the Atomic Energy Commission. And, as any manager will tell you, the best design for failure is to offer responsibility without authority. That is what we are doing with the Secretary of Energy here. Keeping the Secretary of Energy in the line of authority is the best way that we in Congress and that the citizens of this country can have accountable control of our nuclear establishment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the primary sponsor of H.R. 88, a bill originally introduced by our esteemed former colleague, Representative Brown of California, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson substitute. The first legislative act I took when I came to Congress in January was to cosponsor the Shays-Meehan bill. I did that because I believe that there is a crisis of confidence among voters in our political process. They know it is broken. If we are ever going to restore the full trust of the American people in their Government, we must reform the campaign fiance system. The trust is vital if we are ever going to meet challenges like guaranteeing Social Security, improving our schools, increasing access to health care. The public will not accept any solutions crafted here if they believe the solutions exist just for the special interests. The Shays-Meehan bill would bar soft money; it would expose deceptive ads for what they really are, campaign ads. It would require new disclosure rules. These are partial, but essential, reforms. By contrast, the Hutchinson substitute would simply redirect these funds to State political parties and allow the parties to continue to raise unlimited soft money. With double-existing hard money amounts, it is not reform; it is a step backwards. Pass the Shays-Meehan bill, not a substitute.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, political consultants say campaign finance reform, in their words, does not poll. The opponents of campaign finance reform legislation think that if they prevent or water down this legislation, no one will notice. There will be no price to pay. There will be a price to pay, Mr. Speaker. We face a crisis of trust in our Government. America cannot deal successfully with the tough problems that face this legislature, taxes, Social Security, Medicare, unless we have the trust of the people. The Shays-Meehan legislation on campaign finance reform is a very good and excellent first step in restoring trust in government.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of reauthorization of the Congressional Award Program. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the award program and I believe that it is appropriate to consider and review the origins and meaning of the award and our expectations for the board that serves to administer it on our behalf. I take special pride in the fact that the Congressional Award was started by our late distinguished colleague Representative James J. Howard from central New Jersey. The award was enacted 20 years ago this November by Representative Howard who began laying the groundwork in 1969 for the program with the help of a young and future physician, Frank H. Arlinghaus, Jr., of Rumson, NJ, to fashion this uniquely American program. With the help of former Senator Malcolm Wallop, a bipartisan program was enacted in 1979. At the time of this sponsorship in the Senate, Senator Wallop and Representative Howard noted that Congress recognized a responsibility and opportunity to elevate and encourage the pursuit of excellence and to focus the creative energies of America's young people on positive ends. Congress, they said, wished to offer young people an opportunity and a challenge to new endeavors and achievement. Representative Howard noted at that time that, although there were many programs for young people throughout the world, the Congressional Award Program was ours, it was unique and was to be independent of any other organization or association. Indeed the senior leadership of Congress gave explicit guidance to the National Director in 1982 that while the mandate of the Congressional Award is to make the program available to all interested young Americans, the autonomy of the Congressional Award as an independent program must be preserved at all times as it bore the imprimatur of Congress. Any relationship with any organization wither domestic or international is subject to that proviso. My distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle from New Jersey take special pride in the fact that the Congressional Award in New Jersey operates under the most successful council in the country. That council has recently surpassed 1,300 awards earned in New Jersey alone and is now embarked on a record setting year of participation. There are hundreds of young people participating in the program, equally as many advisors and validators, and a host of supporting voluntary agencies and corporate supporters. This year alone there may be as many as four ceremonies to recognize these special young Americans. The Congressional Award is Congress's special message to young people about national aspirations, values and goals. This award is a special message to young people and is a way of our communicating to them and to provide an avenue of communication with the young people who will comprise the leadership of America in the future. This program is not necessarily easy nor is it difficult, but it takes character, persistence, initiative, service and achievement. At the Bronze Award level 100 hours of public service, 50 hours of personal development and 50 hours of physical fitness endeavors with a one night expedition is a beginning test for a young person over 14 years old. It requires 7 months but not more that 12 to complete. The Silver Award requires 200 hours of public service, 100 hours of personal development effort, and 100 hours of physical fitness endeavor with a 2-night expedition. This requires over a 12-month commitment but not over 24 months. The Gold Congressional Award requires 400 hours of public service, 200 hours of personal achievement effort, 200 hours of physical fitness with a 4-night expedition. This supreme effort requires a 24-month commitment but not more than 36 months. A young person must be at least 16 to begin and be over 18 to earn and receive the Gold Award which our leaders present in a special ceremony in the Capitol. Each of these awards are earned separately and work done on one level is not counted for work on another level. Indeed the special and rigorous nature of the award as achieved by those outstanding future leaders was cited by our distinguished Senate colleagues Senator Lott and Senator Daschle as a requisite hallmark of the Congressional Award in their remarks at the Gold Award ceremony on June. How do young people meet this challenge and earn this distinction? As was provided for in prior legislation, a state council is formed and appointed with consultation among our colleagues. The many adult volunteers and advisors who assist these young people are recruited, educated, and trained to administer the program. Each applicant registers, proposes their program, and it is evaluated and modifications made where appropriate. At the conclusion of that initial process their work begins. At the conclusion of demonstrated commitment, service, and achievement, we in turn through our councils assisted by the National Office salute their work with Congressional Award.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise to oppose the rule and the appropriations bill. As if the damage to housing and to veterans were not enough, the bill before us contains deep cuts to research and development. Research and development is the engine which is driving our robust economy. The $25 million cut to the National Science Foundation below the current level, among other critical research, includes a cut even to critical science education programs. And the incredible $1 billion slash in the NASA budget below the current level will be felt by scientists who will be forced to end long-standing research in astronomy and space science. As a scientist, I know that today's research will produce further major scientific advancement that can improve the quality of life of the American people. In this time of economic prosperity where we discuss budget surpluses and tax cuts, it is unwise to cut at the heart of that prosperity. Let us send this appropriations bill back to the drawing board and oppose cuts to the National Science Foundation and NASA.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, five years ago next month, Congress passed and the President signed into law the most comprehensive piece of Federal anti-crime legislation in history. Now, the Majority seems intent on slashing funding for the centerpiece of that bill--the COPS program. In that time, COPS has provided law enforcement agencies in my district and across the nation with critical funding to fight and prevent crime. In my district, communities in Hunterdon, Monmouth, Mercer, Middlesex, and Somerset counties have received more than $14 million to fund the addition of 290 officers to the beat. The creation of the COPS program was a breakthrough in law enforcement. By funding additional officers, critical technologies, and valuable training, COPS has been a catalyst for the revolutionary shift to community policing. COPS and community policing have put us on the right track. Crime is at its lowest level in more than a quarter of a century. Violent crime is at a 27 year low. the murder rate is lower than it has been in three decades. And the police chiefs and sheriffs in my district consistently tell me that we could have never achieved this much without the additional officers and technology funded under the COPS program. In May, COPS provided for the 100,000th officer and some think this means that we can pat ourselves on the back and declare victory. I disagree. Crime is still too high. While we have made progress, violent crime is still six times higher than it was in 1962. And more than 18,000 people were murdered in the U.S. last year. We can and must do more. That is why I support continuing the COPS program to add 30,000 to 50,000 more officers to the street. Every major law enforcement group, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities support this proposal. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to play politics with the safety of our communities. Congress should reauthorize and fully fund the COPS program.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Thelma and Harry Zalewitz, who will be honored this weekend by the State of Israel Bonds with the Independent Issue Award for their contributions to the Jewish community in America over the last 50 years. Together they have served on a wide variety of committees, held countless leadership positions, and tirelessly advocated the importance of public service and ``giving back'' to the community. Both Thelma and Harry Zalewitz were born in the United States to parents who had emigrated from Eastern Europe. Their families had settled in America with the hope of escaping persecution and reaching toward freedom and the ability to create a better life. They met in Paterson, NJ, and were married in 1946 after Harry returned from World War II. Ten years later, the couple moved with their three children to Verona, NJ, where they joined and immediately became involved in the Jewish Community Center of Verona. Within a short time, both Harry and Thelma were serving on the Synagogue's Board and holding elected positions. Harry was chosen as Synagogue President and Thelma as Executive Secretary to the Board of Directors. Harry also held the position of co-chairman of the Verona- Cedar Grove campaign of the Jewish Federation. Over the years, the couple has actively participated in the development and growth of the Jewish Community Center of Concordia. Harry served as Vice President for the center, and lent his expertise as a member of the Board of the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County. Their gratitude for the quality of life they have been privileged to experience has directed them to give both time and resources to insure that same quality of life for all Jewish people. Today, Harry and Thelma continue to lead their local Jewish community. Thelma currently serves the important role of writing the Yartzeits for the Jewish Congregation of Concordia, transposing the Hebrew dates to the Gregorian calendar dates. They also support the State of Israel through investment in the Israel Bonds campaign. Thelma and Harry have willingly given themselves to the community. I urge my fellow representatives to join me in recognizing this exceptional couple.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for the last few years, my distinguished colleague from Indiana, Dan Burton, has been introducing legislation to either eliminate or greatly reduce development assistance to India unless certain conditions with regards to human rights are met. These initiatives have never won the approval of the House. Yesterday, we were slated to vote on amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill that threatened to reduce development assistance to India under the Agency for International Development by 25 percent. I rose in opposition to this amendment. As in the past, my colleague cited human rights abuses in India as the reason for his legislative initiative. While human rights abuses have been uncovered in India, it is important to note the significant progress India has made in resolving human rights problems, as noted in the State Department's human rights report on India. In Punjab the serious abuses of the early 1990's were acknowledged and condemned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court delegated responsibility for investigation of these abuses in the Punjab to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), whose investigation continues. Prison visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jammu and Kashmir are another example of government transparency. India is addressing its human rights problems because it is a democracy--the world's largest. Although the country has confronted many challenges since gaining independence in 1947, it has stayed true to its founding principles. India is a model for other nations that are still striving to build civil societies, institutionalize democratic values of free expression and religion, and find strength in the diversity of their land and their people. All this sets India favorably apart from other countries all over the world. It is incomprehensible to me why my colleague chose to single out the country that is particularly well prepared to address its human rights problems--and has shown the willingness to do so. It is also incomprehensible to me why we would jeopardize the development assistance provided by the Agency for International Development. This development assistance is essentially humanitarian aid. Withholding this aid would have punished the same people his ill- conceived amendment sought to protect. Access to adequate nutrition, shelter, and education--the objective of our aid to India--is a human right as well. It is for these reasons that I spoke in opposition to the Burton amendment last night. I am glad that my colleague withdrew his amendment in light of the overwhelming opposition he faced.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct the attention of my colleagues to the accomplishments of Central New Jersey's Alan Karcher, who died on Monday, July 26 at the age of 56. Mr. Karcher, a dedicated member of the Democratic Party, represented the city of New Brunswick and the rest of the 19th Legislative District in the New Jersey Assembly for seventeen years. His years of service had a lasting impact on the politics of my state. As Lou Rainone, a friend, aide, and law partner to Mr. Karcher, has said, Mr. Karcher was ``the architect of the modern legislature in New Jersey. He made the Legislature an equal branch of government with the Governor's administration.'' Governor Christine Todd Whitman agrees. On Tuesday, she ordered state government flags flown at half-staff for the remainder of the week, and remarked that Mr. Karcher ``was a worthy and capable adversary who truly embodied the spirit of the loyal opposition.'' Mr. Karcher began his remarkable political career early in life. In 1966, while still a student at Rutgers University Law School, Mr. Karcher served as Secretary to the President of the New Jersey Senate. After several more years of staff service to the legislature, Mr. Karcher was elected to office himself in 1973. Mr. Karcher went on to become Majority Leader in 1980 and Speaker of the Assembly in 1981. A political upset in 1985 brought the Republicans a majority in the assembly and removed Mr. Karcher from the Speaker's chair. Yet Mr. Karcher continued to serve in New Jersey politics, campaigning unsuccessfully for the Democratic Governor's nomination in 1989 and serving in the Democratic National Convention in 1984 and 1988. Mr. Karcher retired from the New Jersey Assembly in 1990. Mr. Karcher's service to his state and country did not end there. In 1990, Mr. Karcher accepted an appointment as a fellow in residence at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He wrote two books on political issues and helped found the successful Sayreville law practice of Karcher & Rainone. In 1987, he served as an appellate counsel for Mary Beth Whitehead-Gould in the historic ``Baby M'' surrogate-mother case which was successfully argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court. After retiring to Princeton, New Jersey several years ago, Mr. Karcher's last great accomplishment was to rebuild the Democratic party of Mercer County, where in 1998 he helped to bring about my own upset victory against a favored incumbent. Mr. Speaker, Alan Karcher's life was a model of public service, commitment, and political integrity. He stands as an example to us all, regardless of party and persuasion. I hope that my colleagues in the House will join me and other Central New Jerseyans in extending our gratitude and condolences to Mr. Karcher's friends and family.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act. The human body is a complicated machine. There is a lot we are still learning about the body, how it works, and how to protect it. Far be it for me as a scientist to say that we should avoid studies to get the facts. I expect, in fact, that we will learn a lot about the human body and how to take care of it in the workplace for decades to come. But several of my colleagues here have talked about the unpredictability of workplace injuries. They may not be sure why they have back problems or other injuries. Well, in fact that is the point. Because the human body is so complicated, in many cases, it is difficult to determine the cause of an individual musculoskeletal disorder. If we could identify the cause of injury in each case, we could rely on the employer's altruism or self-interest or worker's comp findings or even the threat of a lawsuit to see that each individual threatening situation was taken care of. But it is in just such circumstances where we have statistical evidence about this complicated machine that we need the kind of general regulations and protections that OSHA provides. We want to continue the effort to obtain the best evidence, but that is not a reason to delay providing guidelines. There is now concrete evidence. There are clear relationships between occupational assignments and musculoskeletal injuries. See the National Research Council, National Academy report and the NIOSH report. There are clear techniques and equipment for reducing injury or, as the National Academy says, specific interventions. Ergonomic guidelines are not antibusiness. There are hundreds of outstanding businesses around the country that are working on ergonomic solutions and applying ergonomic remedies. There is an industry total of something like $20 billion a year lost due to ergonomic injuries. And we have to remember there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not able to pick up and hug their children due to ergonomic injuries. So what we need, of course, are good studies and good facts, and I hope we will continue to get them. But we have now enough knowledge about specific interventions in the workplace that will help reduce this cost to our economy and, more important, will reduce this harm and pain and suffering to individuals. We don't need political delay. Congress should vote against H.R. 987.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment. As in the past, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has cited human rights abuses in India as the reason for his legislative initiative. While human rights abuses have been uncovered in India, it is important to note the significant progress that India has made in resolving human rights problems. As noted in the State Department's human rights report on India, India is addressing its human rights problems because it is a democracy, as noted, the world's largest. Although the country has confronted many challenges since gaining independence in 1947, it has stayed true to its founding principles. For 50 years, India has been striving to build a civil society, to institutionalize democratic values of free expression and religion, and to find strength in the diversity of its land and its people, despite such things as outside insurgence in Kashmir. I do not see why we would want to jeopardize this humanitarian aid. Withholding this aid would punish the same people this ill-conceived amendment seeks to protect, adequate nutrition, shelter, and education. These are human rights too. I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also oppose it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. I had hoped to be able to vote today for responsible tax cut legislation that could return some money to the people who elected us. Unfortunately, legislation of that type is not on the floor. I support targeted tax cuts. I have joined together with Republicans on some of the very proposals contained in this package. I agree that we need to substantially modify the estate tax that penalizes small business people and family farms. I agree that the tax code should not penalize marriage. I support tax credits for long-term health care and to help ease property taxes on citizens by helping communities with the costs of modernizing their schools. I support the research and development tax credit. And I support modernizing and simplifying the entire tax code. But the bill that the Ways and Means Committee has brought forward is a massive bill based on a breathtakingly irresponsible roll of the dice. It is a political document that promises massive tax cuts--nearly $792 billion in tax cuts--with money that we do not now have, and may never have if projected budget surpluses do not materialize. A large proportion of the predicted budget surpluses is based on the assumption that Congress, the President and our constituents will agree to deep cuts--cuts of almost 20 percent--in investments in education, health care, environmental cleanup, research, law enforcement and every other item of discretionary federal spending. Some cuts need to be made in government spending. But it is not realistic to assume that Congress will pass these deep reductions when it has already shown reluctance to pass cuts of even a fraction of this size during this year's appropriations process. And the bill assumes that our nation will never face emergencies like natural disasters, unexpected military operations or downturns in the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill assumes $180 billion in cuts below the baseline in discretionary spending over the next ten years. Those projected cuts and that spending of the projected budget surplus for large tax cuts jeopardizes our ability to protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations. Mr. Speaker, politicians make promises. But this bill sprinkles promises like fairy dust, with no thought to how those promises will be kept, or the consequences for our economy if they are not. No parent in my central New Jersey district bets their children's financial future on rosy scenarios and sunny, castle in the sky projections. They sit around the kitchen table and budget their bills, and their income and their anticipated expenses. And they make tough choices. The very least they can expect from us is the same type of honesty and responsibility when we make decisions that effect their families. Some here will try to make this a partisan issue. But the fact is that some Democrats would love to pass targeted tax cuts. And some Republicans, from the moderates who opposed this bill last night, to watchdog groups like the Concorde Coalition, have clearly stated how irresponsible they believe this bill is. Fifty economists, including six Nobel Prize Winners, have called this approach irresponsible. Even the Wall Street Journal--hardly a group of wild-eyed liberals--has been vocal in their criticism. It does not help that a large portion of this $792 billion bill is dedicated to special interest tax provisions. These expensive provisions don't go to families. They don't go to workers. And they don't go to seniors. They benefit mining interests--oil and gas producers--and large multinational corporations. These tax changes may or may not be good ones. We haven't had the chance to review them because they were inserted at the last minute. What we do know is that they are extremely expensive. And I don't think that any of my constituents think that giving away $300 billion in tax breaks to corporations without review is the way we ought to be making public policy. Mr. Speaker, people in New Jersey pay a lot in taxes. I want very badly to provide a responsible tax cut to these hardworking citizens. And I had hoped to be able to do that today. Frankly, the easy vote for me today would be to cast a yes vote on this package, and hope that someone--somewhere--at sometime further along in the legislative package says ``Wait a minute. This doesn't add up.'' But I cannot. My constituents elected me to make judgments based on evidence, not ideology. And the evidence of this bill is that it has very real potential to throw our economy back in the financial ditch that Republicans and Democrats have labored for so long, and so hard, to climb out of. We can come together to pass a responsible bill. There are men and women on both sides of the aisle that want to see responsible tax relief. This legislation is not that. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2488.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleagues from Michigan and California, and recognizing the difficulty that we have had in obtaining good data that the local educational agencies are in fact spending the $300 million that we had understood is being spent, we want to make sure that this legislation results in maintaining an approximate level of effort equal to that understood level. Mr. Chairman, of all the important jobs in our society, nothing makes more of an impact on our children than a well-trained, caring and dedicated teacher. No job ultimately is more important to our society. Teachers across our Nation are doing an outstanding job. As I travel around my central New Jersey district, I have met with hundreds of teachers who are working hard every day to prepare students to succeed in this ``new'' economy and it is not often easy. I am proud that this Congress has come together in a bipartisan way to produce a bill which provides new opportunities and resources both for training teachers who are already in the classroom and to hire new teachers for our growing schools. This is a strong bipartisan bill that will improve teacher quality and reduce class sizes across the country. Across the nation, schools will have to hire more than 2 million new teachers over the next ten years simply to keep up with the retirement and departures of existing teachers. We must in addition hire additional teachers to reduce class sizes, especially in the early years. We have learned that class-size reduction, especially in the early years, is a significant factor for increased student achievement. The Teacher Empowerment Act gives schools the flexibility to both improve teacher quality and reduce class-size. My district in central New Jersey is undergoing unprecedented growth. Young families are moving into new houses, and school principals get phone calls daily from parents who are moving into the area. In Montgomery Township, in 1990 their school enrollment was about 1,500 students. When they open for classes in September, Montgomery will have to provide seats for 3,500 students. This is an increase of 134% in 10 years. And enrollment is expected to rise another 1,500 students over the next five years. As these areas construct new schools, they need to hire qualified new teachers. The Teacher Empowerment Act provides resources to help these growing school districts hire new teachers. In addition, most of these 2 million new teachers to be hired in the next decade will have to teach math and science. All elementary school teachers teach math and science and often do not feel prepared to do so. Math and science are classes which serve as gateways for our children to the opportunities of tomorrow. Yet schools are finding difficulty finding enough qualified teachers in these critical subjects. I am pleased that we were able to work together to strengthen teacher training for math and science. This bill maintains funding that was provided under the Eisenhower Professional Development Program for math and science teacher training. It also says that if school districts want to use the math and science money for other uses, they must ensure that the training needs of all of their math and science teachers, including elementary school teachers, are met. The Teacher Empowerment Act continues the priority previous Congresses have established to support teachers in the critical fields of math and science. Teachers often perform miracles in the classrooms which too many of us take for granted. This bill provides the support and the smaller classes these teachers need to help our children perform miracles.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the subsidy for timber sales management by $23 million and direct the money to sorely needed forest restoration projects. The reduction would be to the level requested by the administration. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the cost of doing business for the timber industry, especially at the expense of the environment. According to the General Accounting Office, Forest Service timber sales programs lose money, $995 million in a 2-year period recently. And in that period, taxpayers paid $245 million to construct timber roads in the national forests. These losses and subsidies cost taxpayers and the environment. The Wu-Hooley amendment would help the Forest Service implement a responsible budget by transferring harmful industry handouts to spending that would promote healthy streams and lakes and would help to protect, restore and improve wildlife habitat. The economic waste and environmental damage caused by the Forest Service timber programs have gone far enough. I urge my colleagues to support the Wu-Hooley amendment to help move the Forest Service budget in the right direction.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the interior appropriations bill and in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the committee; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member; and the members of the subcommittee have done an excellent job on the bill, and I applaud them for their efforts. I am also pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), in support of our amendment to offer additional funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We in New Jersey see firsthand the benefits of natural resource protection. The citizens of my State have used our collective wisdom, I hope, to voluntarily preserve 40 percent, let me repeat, 40 percent of our land by the year 2010. The Garden State has a national reputation for making consistent efforts to preserve and protect our natural resources. Between 1961 and 1995, New Jersey voters approved bond issues totaling more than $1.4 billion to acquire 390,000 acres of open space to preserve historic sites and to develop parks. Last November, there was overwhelming voter approval of a $1 billion open-space initiative. Local citizens not only in New Jersey but on a national level keep making the argument that we are losing open lands to housing complexes, to shopping centers and that we need to do something to save our open spaces. Today, we continue the fight to revitalize the Federal portion of the open space partnership. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, or what has been called the ``cornerstone of American conservation and recreation,'' should be strengthened. Our Nation is enjoying tremendous benefits from the LWCF. Since 1965, the LWCF programs have provided New Jersey with over $145 million in matching funds to acquire open space and develop recreational facilities. America's favorite park is not one of those big parks somewhere else. America's favorite park is the neighborhood park that America can get to. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund supported the first county park to open in Hudson County, New Jersey, in nearly 80 years. It also helped us add nearly 650 acres to Jenny Jump State Forest and to develop Liberty State Park, one of our Nation's most historic attractions. These tremendous benefits do not stop in New Jersey. LWCF is doing wonderful things across the country. We can make preserving our open spaces a priority, but we need to preserve land. And the need to preserve land exceeds the supply of State and local funds. That is why we must restore the Stateside funding for LWCF. It would help us to acquire lands across the United States that are truly of national significance, from our precious coastal areas in California to the New Jersey highlands region. It would help our Nation continue to develop urban waterfront parks, a vital part of restoring cities. And each State's growing partnership in preservation with local governments and nonprofit agencies would benefit from a restored Stateside allocation. Across the United States, local governments are leading the way in the preservation of lands and natural resources, but they need Federal help to build on and complement what the States are already doing. This money could be used to protect our Nation's shorelines, to reduce pollution, to preserve open land, to increase recreational opportunities, and to maintain wildlife. We are doing our part in New Jersey. Now we are asking that the Federal Government join us in our partnership by restoring Stateside funding for LWCF. New Jersey's commitment to open space protection has helped increase awareness for environmental concerns throughout the country. We must take action today to protect open space and to provide outdoor recreation facilities across the Nation. I ask my colleagues to support the McGovern-Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt amendment for Stateside funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today many of us are signing the discharge petition to bring a Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor for free and open debate. I know the American public want it. I certainly know my constituents want it. They want a restoration of the doctor-patient relationship so that doctors can determine medical necessity, so that doctors and their patients can make the medical decisions, so that health care plans are held accountable for their medical decisions or lack of decisions. I am certainly proud that I have able to take the first legislative action in the Congress on the subject by introducing in subcommittee an amendment to hold health care plans accountable for their medical decisions. The leadership has been holding the American public in the waiting room. This discharge petition will allow us to get out of the waiting room and get the health care that we Americans deserve.