Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding me this time. The direction in which the administration has been leading our Nation on nuclear weapons is becoming increasingly dangerous. That is why I wrote to President Bush in April, a letter co-signed by 33 of my colleagues here, to underscore our concern that our Nation's leaders not adopt a mindset of viewing nuclear weapons as just an extension of the continuum of conventional military options available to the United States. It is important that we maintain the nuclear distinction. I rise to support this motion because it gives us the opportunity to invoke at least one cautionary restraint on this dangerous path. Both the House and Senate versions of this bill eliminate the Spratt-Furse ban that has been in place since 1993. And this Senate language, especially, would allow Pandora's box to be opened to allow, in effect, unfettered research into low-yield nuclear weapons. As a scientist, I can talk about the studies that some of my scientific colleagues have prepared about why some of the newly conceived weapons like the bunker buster would not work as proposed, why they would be dirty, why they would be unwieldy; but I choose instead to focus for just a moment on the more important strategic and tactical questions. We should be stepping away from using tactical nuclear weapons, not moving in that direction. U.S. battlefield commanders have said over and over again that they have long recognized the folly of battlefield nukes. The weapons and especially these newly conceived weapons put our troops at risk and are not useful in advancing military campaigns. And very important, this work would be sending the wrong message to our allies and to potential adversaries around the world. They would view the adoption of this bad, particularly the bad Senate language as further evidence that America is bent upon developing and procuring a new generation of nuclear weapons. As we go to war around the world in part to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we should not be sending the signal that we are bent on developing and procuring a new generation of nuclear weapons. So the Spratt motion is a very constructive step that provides, I think, an important safeguard that actually will help to make our country and our world more secure.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bipartisan amendment to add the much-needed funds to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Our funding of the arts and humanities in the United States is meager indeed. It could be much greater. It should be much greater, but I would settle for at least the increase in the gentlewoman from New York's (Ms. Slaughter) amendment. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities play crucial roles in American cultural life. We have all heard over and over again of the benefits they bring to individuals and communities, the National Endowment for the Arts and the NEH. The funding of these institutions provide help to many organizations beyond those that directly receive the NEA and NEH grants. As a former teacher, I can tell my colleagues that arts education helps children be better students and helps them learn critical thinking skills. This is a long overdue and a modest funding increase to build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America. The arts and humanities are important for our growth and our well- being. The arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly sustenance. They power economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie our diverse society and country together. The arts represent the future. The arts challenge us. The arts wake us up. The arts help us learn who we are as a society and as individuals. Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country more worth defending.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment actually is silent on exactly how the money would be allocated within the Department. Perhaps it could be through the Food Safety and Inspection Service. But the point is, this is authorized, and it is provided for under the authorization; and I think it will be easy to fit into the Department's public education activities.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will provide $1 million to establish and develop the food biotechnology public education program that was authorized in the Farm Act, H.R. 2646, during the 107th Congress, but was never funded. The use of biotechnology, such as to produce genetically engineered foods, has the potential to improve yields of nutritionally enhanced foods with less land, reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, can benefit farmers, consumers and the environment. The history of agriculture has indeed been a history of progress. Now there is an immediate and critical need for accurate information, both on food production systems that have provided the American consumer with a diversified and healthful food supply, and on the role of this new technology in food production. It is only based on clear, accurate, and scientific information that consumers can make sense of the often sensational risk and benefit claims reported and rumored. In 1999, for example, the journal ``Nature'' published a study suggesting that pollen from genetically modified corn would harm the monarch butterfly population. This sparked a worldwide controversy. Follow-up studies have shown since that the pollen presents no significant danger to monarchs, but the foundation of fear based on emotion had been set, and soon other nonscience-based allegations about biotechnology emerged. I have been asked if this amendment is an anti-biotechnology or a pro-biotechnology amendment. I would argue that it is an anti-ignorance amendment. It is not to say that biotechnology is always benign under all circumstances; but consumers, researchers, and farmers will benefit from a public that is well informed and engaged in the debate about food biotechnology. Although food biotechnology has immense potential, consumers and farmers have legitimate concerns regarding the safety of genetically engineered foods. No one, however, is served by assertions from ignorance. It is appropriate for the government to provide the public with clear evidence-based information that helps consumers, policymakers and others make informed choices about food. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, so that the Department of Agriculture will have the necessary funding to carry out this authorized program and so that the public will be best informed.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HOLT. With those assurances from both Chairs, recognizing that the public debate is raging on and the need for this public information is now, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and to work with the chairman, with the expectation that we can work something out in the coming months in this session of Congress.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, let me ask the chairman of the authorizing committee if he did not have in mind how this would be administered in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, on May 30th the Administration quietly issued a new regulation that will put an additional financial squeeze on millions of college students and their families by cutting their deduction for state and local taxes in the student financial aid eligibility formula. This new rule, which was finalized by the Department of Education without review or approval by the Congress, will effectively eliminate Pell Grant eligibility for some needy students and reduce Pell Grant awards and subsidized loans for other students. The Pell Grant program is the cornerstone of federal student financial aid, providing assistance to nearly 4 million students. These grants are the foundation of their financial aid packages. Without them, it is likely that these students will not have enough money to go to school. And in our new highly-skilled work environment, a college education is more important than ever. College is the best investment of a lifetime. We must take steps to ensure that higher education is within the reach of all Americans so that they are prepared to meet the challenges they will face in our increasingly competitive world. This new rule, will force students to mortgage their futures by going further into debt to attend college. For example, a family of four living in Pennsylvania, earning $63,000 a year, with one child attending college full time, would have to pay about $800 per year more toward college expenses. A family of four living in New Jersey earning $45,000 a year with one child in college, attending full time, get an estimated $1,600 Pell Grant under the Bush regulation compared to a $1,700 Pell Grant under current regulations. For a middle class family, working hard to make ends meet in a poor economy, these are big differences. This is happening just as attending college gets more expensive every month, with states and private institutions raising tuition and other costs. The Labor, Health Human Services and Education appropriations bill before us does nothing to remedy this problem. The new student aid state tax allowances created under this rule will reduce the state tax percentage deduction for nearly all students at a time when the state and local tax burden is going up, not down, for many families. The Department's new state tax rates, however, are based on outdated data from 2000. Since then, our economy has spiraled downward, and many states and local communities have had to increase taxes in order to offset budget shortfalls. Nationwide, the Administration's regulation could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of federal assistance to students and families. The Department of Education estimates that 84,000 students would lose Pell Grant eligibility altogether as a result of the regulation. As the legislative process continues, I hope my colleagues will address this problem, which is making college less accessible to middle-class families.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the three gentleman for agreeing to enter into this discussion on the importance of providing balanced bipartisan technology assessment, an approach to begin the process that will allow this Congress and our successors to utilize more of the empirical, fact-based, scientific and technical expertise needed to shape a sound public policy.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted an amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act bill to provide $7 million to revive the Office of Technology Assessment as authorized by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972. During its 23 years of existence, OTA provided Congress with highly respected, impartial analysis of complex scientific and technological issues and their impacts on current legislation. When OTA's funding was eliminated in 1995, Congress lost a valuable and unique resource. Although my amendment was not ruled in order, I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with the chairman the need for more scientific advice in Congress. Mr. Speaker, science and technology have pervaded almost every aspect of our society. Most, if not all, of the bills that come to the floor of the House include technological components. Technology has played and will continue to play an important role in many of the issues such as economic development, homeland security, and environmental stewardship, which this body has dedicated so much time and money to address. Mr. Speaker, if the OTA were still in existence, it is likely we would have received I think in a timely way reports that address the importance of research in early childhood development as it relates to Head Start or technology needed to ensure intraoperability of first responder communication devices in high-rise buildings, scientific evidence regarding the safety of genetically engineered food, or a comprehensive assessment of the technology available to ensure the safety of our airlines and shipping ports. Would my colleagues, the ranking member on this committee and the chairman and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), agree that many issues such as these that we deal with on a daily basis are highly technical and that we could use more help in evaluating the merits of such legislation dealing with such matters?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in directing the GAO to conduct three pilot technology assessments, and I am sure they would agree with me that three reports is not nearly sufficient to meet the needs of Congress. I would suggest that we need a capacity to conduct upwards of 40 reports a year. Now, whether housed in the GAO or in a re-funded OTA, we need to provide the support to ensure a sustained capacity in-house to conduct a significant number of studies and maintain a professional staff to accomplish this objective. Currently, we are not providing the GAO with sufficient funds to achieve this objective.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in light of yesterday's consideration of a bill to ensure that federal retirees will not lose their prescription drug coverage under the Republican leadership's Medicare prescription drug legislation, I have a question for Mr. Davis. Chairman Davis, I applaud you and the Government Reform Committee for looking out for the interests of retired federal employees. I must ask, however, why you do not see an inconsistency here. With this bill, you have acknowledged that the Medicare drug legislation passed by this House could give Congress an incentive to drop prescription drug coverage for federal retirees because they will get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Will you also acknowledge that under the Medicare bill passed by the Republican leadership, nearly one-third of employers currently offering retiree drug benefits--covering 11 million seniors--would drop that coverage, according to the CBO? If federal retirees are to be protected from having to rely on what would be inadequate prescription coverage under Medicare, shouldn't all retirees with such coverage be protected? The truth is that the bill passed last month ostensibly to provide prescription medicine to seniors not only undermines Medicare as a program it also undermines private employer- based coverage of retirees.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a memorable figure in our Nation's labor history and to recognize the role of my district in history. Today, we commemorate the accomplishments of Mother Mary Harris Jones, a pioneer in the courageous battle to protect society's most vulnerable. I would like to commend the New Jersey State AFL-CIO, particularly President Charles Wowkanech and Secretary-Treasurer Laurel Brennan, for preparing the public recognition of a woman of tremendous fortitude. Their leadership on behalf of working people in this State follows in the tradition of Mother Jones. If she were here today she would be proud that her legacy is being so well served by two of New Jersey's most respected leaders. The dawn of the 20th century was a bright time for many in America, as our industrial and economic strength leapt forward to meet a new era. For too many, though, it was a dreary, dangerous, and disheartening time. Simply by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, thousands of this Nation's poorest children were forced to work in dangerous conditions in mining and textile industries. Many were robbed of life. Those who survived often suffered a lifetime of chronic maladies. This inequity had no place in Mother Jones's vision of America, and Jones fought vigorously for justice. In the spring of 1903, this fight brought her to Princeton, New Jersey, with an army of 100,000 textile workers that included 16,000 children, who had left their jobs in the Philadelphia area so that a nation might recognize their plight. Mother Jones stood before a crowd of professors, students, and citizens at Princeton University, bringing to the gates of higher education those children who were robbed of even the chance to read or write. Children at this demonstration carried signs saying, ``I want to go to school.'' She showed them James Ashworth, whose ten-year-old spine was contorted from carrying 75-pound bundles of yarn, 10 hours each day, earning $3 per week. She spoke, and a generation was given the hope that a better day would come and the courage to take action against more powerful forces. Mother Jones sparked the Nation's consciousness that day in Princeton. Her army took the first steps toward equity for workers and the abolition of child labor in America. One hundred years later, we should remember her fight, and I hope that all Americans learn from this woman's moral strength and her concern for our poorest children. As we reenact the events of that day and dedicate a memorial to honor Mother Jones, we must continue to speak out for those whose voices are unheard. In so doing we must defend the right to organize, earn a decent living, work in a safe environment, and ensure that all in America share in the progress of this Nation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I commend him and the chairman and the other senior members of this subcommittee for this bipartisan legislation, which will not only help recruit and retain highly qualified teachers but also provide professional development. I certainly hope, as others have said, that the majority and the appropriators will see fit to fund this program fully, unlike the labor and education bill which, as it now stands, underfunds the No Child Left Behind by $8 billion. I am pleased that the committee has accepted two of my amendments in this bill. The first amendment would ensure that teacher-recruitment programs could assist people who want to make the transition into teaching from a career outside of the field of education. The second amendment will allow school districts to form partnerships with universities and businesses. This will allow opportunities for teachers to get clinical experience and training in areas related to science, mathematics and technology, including opportunities in laboratories and businesses. I think teachers with real-world experience are more able to show applications of science to the student, which is a more inspiring way to teach. Investing in improved math and science education in this country is directly linked to the strength of our national security. I believe if we, as a Nation, fail to make a new national commitment to science and math education, we are facilitating the gradual erosion of America's physical and economic security, and do not just take my word for it. The United States Commission on National Security in the 21st Century headed by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman said, ``The inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to the U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine. If we do not invest heavily and wisely in rebuilding these two core strengths, America will be incapable of maintaining its global position long into the 21st century.'' Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for working with me on these amendments, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to follow my other friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I want thank the chairman for his kind words, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and I, I am sure, will continue to persist in seeing that science and math education are well represented in our legislative activities. Over the next 10 years, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, we will have to hire nationally more than 2.2 million teachers just to stay even, to make up for the number of people leaving the teaching force, even without making efforts to bring down the class sizes. The problem is especially acute in special education, where there is a chronic annual shortage of tens of thousands of teachers nationwide. This bill will create incentives to help ensure that we have enough teachers, especially in the areas of math, science, and special education. Loan forgiveness is one of the most effective incentives available to us. In the subcommittee I offered an amendment to provide loan forgiveness incrementally over 5 years of teaching service, as opposed to the original bill that provided loan forgiveness only after a full 5 years. I am pleased that the committee included this incremental loan forgiveness in the final version of the bill. I think it will help with teacher recruitment and retention. Many teachers, especially in the math and sciences field, leave in the first few years. By spreading this incentive, this loan forgiveness, over 5 years, I think it will provide an incentive for teachers to stay instead of leaving the profession or moving to school districts that can afford to pay more. And while I would have liked the bill to cover teachers working in more districts and teaching in other subjects beyond math and science and special education, I still support this legislation. Now, I must say to the chairman, who said that to cover other districts or other subjects or to help with Head Start teachers, the money just was not available, please, I never want to hear that argument again this year. We have just been told by the majority over the last 2 years that there are several trillion dollars that they found, that are more than we know what to do with, and they have to be given back. It has to go back in the form of tax cuts. Well, that is several trillion dollars, with a T, that we are talking about. Now, perhaps the majority thinks that the people who receive these tax cuts will pay to recruit teachers and will pay for their professional development, will pay for Head Start competitive salaries, will pay for special education, because, as the majority says, it is their money, they know how to use it better. And if I sound a little sarcastic, it is because I get very impatient with this argument. Trust me, we will not see these tax cuts end up in the hands of the Head Start teachers, we will not see these tax cuts coming back to provide for the training and professional development of teachers or for the recruitment of teachers. This bill will, however, help, and, Mr. Speaker, I do support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for forty years, the federal government has kept a promise to our nation's seniors. That promise is called Medicare, and it means that every senior will receive affordable, reliable health care in their later years. Four years ago, I came to this Congress having made a promise to the seniors in my Congressional district--that I would work to bring Medicare into the twenty-first century by including coverage for prescription drugs. Coverage that, like the original Medicare program, is comprehensive, voluntary, universal, and reliable--without hampering the innovation that has brought us so many miraculous drugs over the past few decades. Today I am voting to keep that promise by opposing a bill that would undermine the Medicare program itself. H.R. 1 purports to offer seniors coverage for the prescription drugs they rely on every day. Unfortunately, it falls far short when held up to the spirit and practice of Medicare. The most distressing aspect of this bill, to me, to my constituents, and to the AARP, is that it takes the entire Medicare program down a short road to privatization. By the year 2010, Medicare would be converted to a voucher program with competition between managed care plans and traditional fee-for-service--only the deck would be stacked against the traditional plans. Seniors would find themselves have forced to enroll in managed care programs like the Medicare+Choice programs that have failed so miserably in central New Jersey. Rather than giving seniors what they want and deserve--a reliable, affordable drug benefit under Medicare, this provision, glibly called ``premium support,'' will destabilize the program and lead to substantially higher costs for seniors who want to stay in traditional Medicare. Yet another element of confusion comes from the bizarre ``donut hole'' in coverage under this bill. Seniors would find themselves paying 20 percent of drug costs up to $2000 in drug costs--then having no coverage until they reach $4900 in drug costs, when a catastrophic cap finally kicks in. Not only is this extremely convoluted, it ends up leaving seniors with a very paltry benefit. A beneficiary with $5000 in annual drug costs would pay nearly $4000 out of their own pocket! This may be alarming to seniors who currently have no drug coverage. There are millions out there, however, who may think this debate won't really affect them because they already have coverage under their company's retiree benefit packages. I want them to know that the Republicans have quite a surprise in store for them. If this bill passes, nearly one-third of employers currently offering retiree drug benefits--covering 11 million seniors--would drop that coverage. Retiree benefits would not count towards the beneficiary's out-of-pocket limit, making it almost impossible for seniors with retiree coverage to ever reach the catastrophic cap. So the bill actually discriminates against seniors with existing coverage and will have the practical effect of employers ending their benefits. This provision makes no sense--why on earth do we want to have less private sector drug coverage? While I am disappointed with the underlying bill, I am pleased to see that the Rules Committee made the Dingell-Rangel substitute bill in order. This legislation would go a long way to fulfilling the promise I mentioned--it would provide a reliable, stable benefit under Medicare. Beneficiaries know exactly what they would pay--20 percent of drug costs up to $2000 in out-of-pocket costs with a defined premium of $25 per month and a defined deductible of $100. Tonight, in this body, by passing H.R. 1 we could be bringing about the end of a program that served seniors so well. Instead, we should pass the Dingell-Rangel substitute. That is what seniors need and deserve.