Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1606 and ask us to come back with a procedure that will permit the Shays-Meehan alternative. This bill opens a huge loophole in the campaign finance laws. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and others have been bulldogs in moving us toward a more perfect democratic union by keeping government of and by the people, not of and by some of the people and by special interests; and this act would not add protections of freedom of speech on the blogosphere as it is purported to do. Rather, it would bring large amounts of money back into deciding who can buy the largest microphone in a Federal campaign. It will smother, not enhance, the voices of true grassroots movements. This would compromise not only the blogs it purports to help, it runs a great risk of harming the political procedure. There are too many questions raised by this. The procedure circumvents open debate. All of us believe that bloggers should not be subjected to censorship. I myself am an occasional guest blogger on political Web sites. Bloggers, like traditional journalists, should be able to communicate with their audience without any fear of violating FEC regulations. However, this legislation is not ready for prime time. I urge my colleagues to oppose it and come back with a procedure that will permit the Shays-Meehan alternative. Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois both for introducing this resolution and for yielding me some time to speak in support of the resolution. The stakes could not be higher. Of course, we should take steps, even if politically difficult, to cut waste and improve efficiency in the military. Let us look where we are. The Pentagon has recommended closures through the BRAC Commission. The BRAC Commission has approved them. Now the House is going to stamp them approved before the Department of Defense has completed its force structure review. This is exactly the opposite of what was supposed to happen. The BRAC commissioners themselves pointed out when they began their hearings this summer that the entire process has the cart before the horse. Also, the Overseas Basing Commission noted that the Pentagon had not factored in the impact of the return of tens of thousands of personnel from Europe to the United States in its BRAC recommendations; and even now, we are proceeding with the BRAC process before the Pentagon has even completed its periodic force review, which is supposed to be the blueprint for what we need for the 21st century. So we will be closing bases, losing key personnel, diminishing critical capabilities, even before we have determined which of those capabilities we need in order to meet current and future threats. The process, Mr. Chairman, has been backwards. I certainly can find fault with some of the specifics in here. I am very familiar with the excellent work done by the people at Fort Monmouth in central New Jersey where they do electronics, command, control, communications, computers. They have taken the lead in developing countermeasures to detect and disarm roadside bombs in Iraq. It is hard to think of anything that could be more important. We know that a large number of these scientists, probably 70, 80 percent of these scientists and engineers and procurement experts will not make the move if Fort Monmouth is closed. That capability would be lost at a time that we cannot afford it. The harm to the military, to the Army, and to the joint services effort, I can assure my colleagues, is much greater than the harm to New Jersey. That is why I am highlighting this example of the problems. Let me be clear, I have nothing but great respect for each of the commissioners and their staffs. They worked for months a grueling schedule, reams of data, listening attentively, openly. In the end, however, the commission produced a series of recommendations that could not be right because the whole thing was flawed from the beginning. They got the cart before the horse. In the resolution before us today, we have the means to stop this flawed and dangerous process, and it is apparent that the commissioners knew that they were not getting it right. In the case of Fort Monmouth, for example, in their recommendations, they charged Congress, not that they are able to charge Congress, but nevertheless they did, to review their results with respect to Fort Monmouth to say do not go ahead with them if it might hurt the capabilities that we need to fight terrorism around the world, to support our troops in the field and Iraq and Afghanistan. They actually said that in their recommendations. They were acknowledging that they were not getting it right, or at least they thought they might not be getting it right. They have got the cart before the horse. It is a flawed process. To give us a chance, I will urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution so that we can get it right. Our country's security depends on it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the new president of lran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told 4,000 hardline students in Tehran that ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' Mr. Ahmadinejad's address was the highlight, if you want to call it that, of a forum called ``The World Without Zionism,'' that also saw chants of ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel.'' The Iranian President also attacked other Muslim nations for making peace with Israel and claimed that terrorist attacks by Palestinians could destroy the Jewish state. I completely and utterly condemn the comments by Iran's president. Peace will only come to the Middle East when all parties recognize Israel's right to exist and completely renounce support for terrorism. Unfortunately, Iran's new government is turning its back on peaceful coexistence and appears bent on confrontation with Israel, the United States, and the world community. Iran also continues to bankroll terrorists, like those who killed five innocent Israelis on Wednesday. Mr. Speaker, the world must unite to denounce the hate speech of Iran's president in the strongest terms possible. Tomorrow, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths will come together to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Catholic Church's landmark document that called from respect for other faiths, particularly Islam and Judaism. And four months ago, the three great Abrahamic religions came together to mourn the death of the great spiritual leader, Pope John Paul II. Because of their nations' alphabetical proximity, the then-presidents of Israel and Iran sat next to each other and even shook hands. But it seems the spirit of interfaith harmony, sadly, lasted little longer than the services for the Pope. Mr. Speaker, as long as Iran's president continues to rage hatefully against Israel and the West, there will be no peace in the Middle East. The world community will not tolerate these comments by Iran's president, and I condemn them as strongly as I can.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose an outrageous provision attached to previously strong legislation. I am shocked and disappointed that the majority has chosen to destroy what was an effective, responsible, and bipartisan bill by including an indefensible provision to restrict nonpartisan civic activity of nonprofit organizations. This legislation started out as an example of how the legislative process should work. The Financial Services Committee reported a bill to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs, and establish an Affordable Housing Fund, AHF. The bill would increase home ownership among low-income families, increase investment in housing in low income and economically distressed areas, and in general increase the Nation's supply of affordable housing. The bill received broad bipartisan support, reported by a vote of 65-5. It is unfortunate that the majority has chosen to mandate consideration of a bill that includes a provision restricting nonpartisan civic activities of nonprofit organizations, even if they use their own funds to conduct such activities. Nonprofit organizations (and any affiliate of the nonprofit) would be prohibited from engaging in nonpartisan voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities. These restrictions would force low-income housing groups and faith-based groups to choose between obtaining funding for low-income housing and using other funds to engage in nonpartisan voter registration and get- out-the-vote activities. In my home State of New Jersey, organizations like Catholic Charities provide vital social services to vulnerable people in need, such as food, clothing, counseling, and health services. They also routinely hold voter registration drives before elections and provide elderly and disabled voters with transportation to the polls. Their activities are nonpartisan and play a vital role in ensuring that people are able to vote if they so desire. Under this legislation, they would no longer be able to fulfill this function. This body should not prohibit social service organizations from conducting nonpartisan civic activities. The majority protests loudly when its actions are judged to be motivated by a desire to suppress voter turnout and civic participation in urban or low-income areas. From the inclusion of this discriminatory provision, it is difficult to reach any other conclusion. Today this rule blocks an amendment by Representative Barney Frank that would remove this provision. It is disheartening to see that, at a time when the majority and the administration claims to support removing barriers for faith-based organizations, this provision has been included to restrict the activities they are permitted to conduct. Inclusion of the provision has sunk the prospects of passing strong and bipartisan legislation that will help the most vulnerable obtain affordable housing. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1409, the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005. This bipartisan bill will provide assistance to the neediest children in the world's poorest countries, and I urge my colleagues to support it. AIDS has been so devastating to the developing world, especially sub- Saharan Africa, partly because so many of those killed by AIDS are adults of child-bearing age. These men and women are often the pillars of their communities and families. Most diseases spare at least one parent, but AIDS often kills both mothers and fathers. Sixteen million children in the developing world are ``double orphans''--both of their parents are dead--mostly because of AIDS. Unfortunately, their numbers are increasing as AIDS continues to ravage the world. Indeed, in four African countries, one in five children will have lost at least one parent to AIDS by 2010. It is vital that we help these children. Extended families care for more than 90 percent of orphans in the developing world. Unfortunately, these families often lack the resources to meet the most basic needs of the orphans. These children are less likely than their peers to be enrolled in school. Many orphaned girls in particular are forced into the workforce at an early age. They are more likely than others to go hungry. Because of the stress of losing their parents and coping with the ensuing problems, they are much more likely to suffer from psychological problems. Many face discrimination both as the children of AIDS victims and as orphans. Orphans and their mothers often have difficulty inheriting the land or other property due to them. This bill authorizes the President to assist programs in developing nations that benefit orphans and other vulnerable children. USAID will work with an array of groups, including international and non- governmental organizations, to provide needed services to orphans. These services include education, school food, protection of inheritance rights and psychosocial care. When possible, community- based groups will directly provide this care. H.R. 1409 includes provisions that monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs funded, so resources will be channeled to the groups that do the best work and need the most assistance. It also creates the office of the Special Advisor for Assistance to Vulnerable Populations, appointed by the Secretary of State, who will oversee the implementation of this bill in USAID programs and coordinate U.S. assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill will ease the suffering of the millions of children who have been orphaned in the developing world, and it is worthy of this House's support.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Gasoline for America's Security Act. We are all too aware of this government's failed response to Hurricane Katrina and the problems that are continuing in the aftermath. Despite all the issues that we must address to assist the victims of this disaster, some of my colleagues are attempting to use this tragedy as a means to push through their flawed initiatives that were left out of the Energy Policy Act. Fortunately, a degree of rationality prevailed late last night and a few of the most egregious provisions were removed. However, this bill still contains many misguided measures and continues the Majority's irrational economic policy of subsidizing one of the most successful industries--the oil and gas industry. Yet this direct handout of taxpayer dollars is not enough and at every opportunity this Congress finds ways to gut environmental regulations that protect the health of our citizens in order to preserve this unsustainable form of energy production. Specifically, this bill will allow cities and States to delay meeting Clean Air Act requirements and undermines States that are seeking to meet these deadlines by limiting the number of fuel blends that can be used. Furthermore, this bill provides an open-ended taxpayer subsidy to cover all the costs that an oil company may incur due to a delay in the initial operation of a new or upgraded oil refinery, including delays due to compliance with State or Federal laws or regulations. Time and again, we come to this floor to commemorate the lives of remarkable Americans that have changed the course of history. We recognize the importance of their contributions and the ways that they improved our lives. We disgrace this American legacy of ingenuity every time that this Congress passes these shortsighted, deeply flawed bills. This Nation is facing an energy crisis and a planet that is suffering from our mismanagement. We have the ability to become independent from fossil fuels and to revitalize the health of our environment. Scientists, researchers and business leaders across this Nation are standing ready to develop and make innovative technologies a reality. Even my constituents in New Jersey that have no connection to the energy industry write me with ideas and their desire to contribute to solving our energy problem. But instead of investing in this ingenuity and our Nation's future, this government keeps spending billions to keep America stuck in the quicksand of nonrenewable energy sources. I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed bill that will do nothing to alleviate the energy crisis facing this Nation and removes important environmental regulations.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker I would like to thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor, recognizing the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives, and supporting National Chemistry Week. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, has been a strong supporter as an original cosponsor of this bill and helped to move it forward. Mr. Ehlers and I do this again as the two physicists in Congress, with no irony that again we physicists would be sponsoring National Chemistry Week. I stand here before you happy to state that in 2003, the last time this body recognized the importance of chemistry in our daily lives, and the importance of National Chemistry Week, I had 3 cosponsors, and this year I have 21 cosponsors. With the world unfolding as it is, and with great rapidity, the increase of cosponsors is an indication of the growing understanding of the importance of chemistry, and science, in our daily lives.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we honor the life of Simon Wiesenthal, a man who dedicated his life to the search of fugitive Nazi war criminals. The ideals of truth and justice guided his effort to fight anti-Semitism and as we mourn, we are reminded of our commitment to these ideals as part of our duty to humanity. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 248, which we are considering on the floor today. Simon Wiesenthal was born on December 31, 1908 in Buczacz, Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and now part of Ukraine. He received a degree in architectural engineering in 1932 from the Technical University of Prague, and in 1936 he began working at an architectural office in Lvov; he did not, however, continue his career in architecture. Three years later, with the partition of Poland and the flood of the Red Army in Lvov, Simon Wiesenthal began losing family members to German brutality. After escaping several near-death situations himself, in 1945 Simon Wiesenthal was liberated by American forces from the concentration camp of Mauthausen in Austria. After almost giving up, Simon Wiesenthal regained his strength and redefined his life's task as a quest for justice. He did not vow to fight for vengeance. Instead, the goal of his noble cause was to create a historical memory that would prevent any repetition of the horrible atrocities committed during the Holocaust. He was instrumental in tracking down fugitive Nazis, and a significant component of his mission was to pressure governments around the world to continue their pursuit and persecution of war criminals. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust carries on his legacy. Simon Wiesenthal was committed to the remembrance of those who he feared would be forgotten, and today we become committed to remembering him. While in Vienna in 1993, Simon Wiesenthal said, ``To young people here, I am the last. I'm the one who can still speak. After me, it's history.'' To continue his mission, we must not forget this history. We must continue to fight for the same principles that defined Simon Wiesenthal's objective. It is troubling that even today one of the most notorious sentiments of the Second World War--anti-Semitism--has yet to be eradicated. It is our duty to combat anti-Semitism and all religious bigotry whenever and wherever it arises. When asked why he chose to search for Nazi war criminals instead of continuing a career in architecture, Simon Wiesenthal responded: ``You're a religious man. You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, `What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, `I became a jeweler.' Another will say, `I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Still another will say, `I built houses,' but I will say, `I didn't forget you.' '' And today, we must unite to say that we will not forget Simon Wiesenthal and we, as strong and responsible human beings, will carry forth his mission.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that calls on the Secretary of Energy to examine the potential of intelligent transportation systems to conserve fuel and help consumers plan their travel and avoid delays. Imagine driving to work and having real-time information tell you the best route to save 10 minutes off your commute. Or imagine accessing information on your cell phone that tells you not only when the bus is scheduled to arrive, but also where the bus actually is at any given moment. In recent years Intelligent Transportation Systems have made significant advancements towards making these ideas a reality. This innovative technology is beginning to alter the transportation sector and has the potential to reduce congestion, increase safety, improve the efficiency of transit and commercial vehicles, and reduce the environmental impact of our growing transportation needs. However, the potential fuel savings from intelligent transportation systems and the various ways these systems could help consumers plan their travel and avoid delays is not fully known. That is why I have introduced legislation calling on the Secretaries of Energy and Transportation to report on the potential benefits associated with using intelligent transportation systems. My legislation will provide current and future users of these systems with detailed information regarding potential fuel savings, system costs, universal applicability and evaluation of case studies, best practices, and emerging technologies from the private and public sector. I believe that we need to further examine this exciting new technology and its possible applications. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Jewish community in the United States and around the world celebrated Rosh Hashanah and the start of the Jewish New Year. With the new year comes a new sense of hope and optimism that anti-Semitism and religious hatred will finally be overcome. October also is the start of the Ramadan and month of fasting for Muslims around the globe. These events remind us that we need to be accepting and tolerant of all people and their religions. We need also to celebrate our religious diversity. It is essential that we encourage cooperation and dialogue between members of all religions. Interreligious respect is vitally important in the fight against religious bigotry. Today, I introduced a resolution that commemorates the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, a hallmark declaration by the Catholic Church on religious tolerance and interfaith relations. My resolution also calls for the United States to continue to condemn and combat anti-Semitism and all forms of religious hatred and racial bigotry worldwide. On October 28, 1965, after an overwhelming vote of 2221 to 88 by the bishops of the Catholic Church, Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, officially known as the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Nostra Aetate, for the first time in 2,000 years, was an authoritative declaration on Catholic-Jewish relations and also on Catholic-interfaith relations. Nostra Aetate, ``In Our Time'' in English, opened the doors for interfaith dialogue and respect between Catholics and Non-Christian religions. It originally began as a declaration on solely Catholic- Jewish relations but was expanded to include Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other traditional religions. The declaration that resulted revolutionized attitudes within the Christian world towards Jews and members of the world's other religions. It was Pope John XXIII who initiated the Second Vatican Council, the event which gave birth to the ``Nostra Aetate'' declaration, a document that highlighted the Jewish roots of Christianity, in an attempt to repair centuries of hostilities between the two religions. The 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate is a time for all people to become reacquainted with its historic importance and to work for even greater religious tolerance and dialogue. In Nostra Aetate the Catholic Church for the first time condemned anti-Semitism and other forms of religious bigotry. The declaration says that ``no foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.'' It also deplored ``all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism directed against Jews at any time or from any source.'' Over the past 40 years, there have been visible triumphs of the spirit and ideals of Nostra Aetate. Pope John Paul II took the message of Nostra Aetate to heart when he visited a synagogue in Rome in 1986, the first such visit by a Catholic Pope, and again when he visited Israel in 2000. But we need to ensure we carry this message of religious tolerance in our own hearts and in our own daily lives. We cannot sit idly by while anti-Semitic comments are made or other forms of religious bigotry and hate are spewed forth. We must continue to oppose these forms of hatred and support continued interreligious dialogue. That is why I have introduced this resolution today. My resolution: Commemorates the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate; Celebrates the historic relationship between Jews, Catholics and other religions worldwide that has resulted; Expresses the need for continued interreligious dialogue and cooperation between all people of all faiths; and Condemns anti-Semitism and encourages the United States to be a leader in ending religious intolerance and discrimination worldwide. Forty years after Nostra Aetate's adoption we have a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the progress that has occurred in religious cooperation and tolerance and remind ourselves of the work that remains to be done. We can, and we must, continue to strive to be a more tolerant people. Our common humanity deserves and demands nothing less.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the conference agreement on H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for FY 2006. I am pleased by some of the provisions in this conference report, but I am also troubled by a number of other provisions. We had several days to prepare before Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast--much longer than we will have before a potential terrorist attack. But the administration's incompetence meant that extra time was almost wasted and lives were lost. In April, we had a successful terrorism response exercise in New Jersey called TOPOFF 3, bringing together Federal, State and local authorities to respond to simulated terrorist attacks. What we need are more exercises like these, not fewer; more and better planning, not less. But this conference report cuts pre-disaster mitigation by $50 million over last year and by $100 million from even the administration's request. If we had spent money ahead of time--if we had pre-positioned assets in the gulf coast region before Katrina struck--we could have saved lives and billions of dollars. As our Nation faces a variety of threats, both manmade and natural, we need to think seriously about these cuts. After watching the Federal Emergency Management Agency seriously mishandle their response to Hurricane Katrina there is a clear need to restructure the Agency. However, we will not be doing that today. This legislation does nothing to reform FEMA--it doesn't improve the leadership, it doesn't return staffing levels to the highs of the 1990s, it doesn't even require that FEMA report directly to the president. FEMA is the Federal Government's first line of defense and response to disasters, and it needs to be reformed. And this bill doesn't provide the money either. This conference report even cuts funding for FEMA by 12 percent from last year's funding level. It also slashes funding for state and local preparedness grants by $585 million below FY 2005 levels. We know that New Jersey is a target for terrorists. In a bioterrorism attack just after September 11, 2001, postal workers in Hamilton were sickened with anthrax. Last year, the Prudential Plaza building in Newark was named as a target after an Al Qaeda laptop computer containing information on the building was found in Pakistan. And, of course, four of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Newark Liberty International Airport and 700 residents of the State were killed on that terrible day. Funds for State and local preparedness are crucial to keep New Jersey and our Nation safe. The police officers who notice something suspicious, the community leaders who develop evacuation plans, the first responders on the scene immediately after an attack--these people are local authorities, and we need to give them the tools they need to do their jobs. There have been two major terrorist attacks in the West since September 11, and both have been aimed at mass transit--the March 11, 2004 Madrid bombings, and the July 2005 London bombings. But the President did not request any specific funds for mass transit. Fortunately, the conference agreement adds $150 million dollars for transit security. New Jersey Transit, the Nation's third largest transit authority, with 220 million riders a year, 40 percent inbound to New York City, runs several trains and buses through my district. Princeton Junction, located in my district, is the fourth busiest station in New Jersey Transit's system. We need more funding for mass transit, and this is a start. This conference report also begins to address one of our greatest vulnerabilities to terrorism, one that the Bush administration continues to ignore. It allocates $30 million for initial programs for better screening of passenger stowed luggage on commercial flights. The conference report also provides for adequate independent oversight of Secure Flight, the next generation of the air passenger prescreening program. This will allow us to balance security and privacy. It also provides $655 million for fire grants, $155 million more than President Bush requested. As we all know, our local fire departments are the backbone of our first responder network. Fire fighters are some of the first to arrive at disasters, be they natural or man-made. I am glad that the conference report provides much needed funds for fire grants. New Jersey is home to what terrorism experts call the ``most dangerous two miles'' in America--the chemical plants, highways, and railroads that lie between Newark Liberty International Airport and the Port of Elizabeth. And in a 14-mile radius around the site, there are 12 million people living and working. The House earlier this year voted to increase funding to help secure these sites. But the conference report does not include this desperately needed funding increase. Rather, it contains only $95 million for the necessary chemical countermeasures that would help secure industrial materials, and provide safety and peace of mind to millions of New Jerseyans. Mr. Speaker, this bill leaves too much undone. Cutting funding for local preparedness and first responders is more than enough justification for New Jerseyans to oppose this bill. We can do better in planning for disasters, reforming FEMA, and assisting state and local governments. And though the conference report does more for transit and air cargo screening, these efforts are just down-payments on what will be a long-term project.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Despite the deceptive title of this bill, it is a measure designed to weaken the protections secured under the landmark Endangered Species Act (ESA). While scientists are uncertain about the exact rate of extinction, they estimate that it is probably thousands of times greater than the rate prior to human civilization. In 1973 Congress enacted the ESA to address this problem of species extinction. The ESA is a comprehensive legal measure that is used to identify and protect species that are determined to be the most at risk. Under this law, once a species is designated as either ``endangered'' or ``threatened,'' powerful legal tools are available to aid in the recovery of the species and to protect its habitat. Without these strong federal protections hundreds of species including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, Florida panther, and the manatee would all be extinct. The bill we are debating today is flawed in many ways, but I am particularly concerned with its removal of habitat protection from the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation is the most significant cause of species extinction. This legislation blatantly ignores the integral role habitat plays in the survival of a species by eliminating the designation of ``critical habitat.'' Without this special designation, our government's ability to recover species will be severely undermined. It is disconcerting that some of my colleagues do not value saving our unique natural treasures, but it is appalling that they refuse to acknowledge that the Endangered Species Act is about much more than saving a unique species. It is undeniable that the world in which we live is an intricately connected environment that is suffering from human abuse and neglect. The loss of a species interrupts the life cycle of the ecosystem it was part of and alters our environment in ways far beyond this isolated event. The Endangered Species Act is a vital tool in preventing and reversing these life cycle disruptions before they ripple out and cause further damage to our natural communities. We all agree that this law should be revisited and improvements to the law should be implemented. I understand the concerns of my colleagues that this law has been abused at the detriment of their constituents' rights. However, I believe there are ways to balance the needs of development and property rights with the need to protect the health of the environment which we all share. Instead of working towards a true compromise, we are considering legislation that is based on the fallacious premise that environmental protection requires a trade-off with private interests. It takes a very short-sighted, short term view of our world and our economy. It ignores the long term damage catering to these private interests will have on our future. The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 severely hampers the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that will result in far reaching and detrimental impacts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res 66, which recognizes the fifth annual celebration of Lights on Afterschool! on October 20 and honors the contributions of after-school programs to our communities. As a former educator, I understand the importance of after-school programs. These programs enrich children's lives with artistic, athletic, and educational activities. They support working parents who want to know that their children are in safe, nurturing environments. After-school programs reduce crime by giving young people positive outlets for the energy. Schools, community members, volunteers and families come together every school day to make these programs successful. Over six million students across the country benefit from after- school programs, and in New Jersey, there are 28,000 students attending these programs. Many after-school programs are federally funded including the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. My district is fortunate to have several of these centers. The Trenton Public Schools have partnered with several organizations, including the Boy Scouts, Imani Community Center and Passage Theatre Company, to integrate after-school, summer and adult education programs to better serve students. The Middlesex County Educational Services Commission provides educational and social activities for students with multiple disabilities, including autism. And the Princeton Regional Schools' after-school program benefits from its designation as a 21st Century Community Learning Center. These programs, and others in my district, strengthen our communities and improve our children's lives. But we can do better. If the No Child Left Behind Act were fully funded, another 64,000 students in New Jersey alone would have a safe place to go after school. I applaud the staff and volunteers of after-school programs, and I am glad to join the one million Americans expected to celebrate Lights on Afterschool! on October 20th.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 209 recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for offering this important resolution. In 2002, family members were responsible for 43 percent of murders of females. Twenty-two percent of murders in 2002 were by family members. The average age for a child killed by a parent is 7 years old and four out of five victims killed by a parent were younger than 13 years old. I could go on for hours with alarming and truly sad statistics similar to these. As a Member of Congress, I believe it is my duty to stand here on the House floor and draw attention to these startling statistics. It is important to keep reiterating these numbers because they aren't just statistics--they are women, men, and children. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, cousins and nieces. In some cases they are our fathers, brothers and sons. Across the country, day in and day out, individuals work tirelessly to eradicate domestic violence by not only participating in domestic violence help and support groups but by educating those on domestic abuse prevention. In central New Jersey, there are many exemplary organizations that provide valuable services to victims of domestic violence. One organization in Monmouth County, New Jersey is 180 Turning Lives Around which provides training and education to both victims and offenders of domestic violence. Some of the many services provided by the group are a School-Based Abuse Prevention Program designed to raise the awareness of abuse among adolescents and provide tools to reduce the risk of teens entering into abusive relationships, a temporary Safe House for women and children who are forced out of their homes because of violence and a 180's Families in Transition Program aimed at providing longer term housing for women and children who face economic instability if they leave their abusive relationship permanently. At these homes, counseling services and training is provided to get women who have been abused on their feet again. Womanspace is a similar organization aimed at serving all victims of domestic and sexual assault in Mercer Country, New Jersey. Womanspace provides counseling and support services, emergency services designed to assist victims immediately following the initial crisis through hotlines, Domestic Violence Victim Response Teams and a confidential and secure short term shelter. Since we passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 the number of reported incidences of domestic violence has decreased. In New Jersey the cases of reported domestic violence decreased by 2 percent from 2004. Although these figures are encouraging, we cannot reduce our attention to this problem. We must continue to support organizations that work day in and day out to educate others on the dangers of domestic violence and counsel those who are already victims. We can do this by reauthorizing full funding for the VAWA which should come to the House floor soon. I also hope that we will have the opportunity to consider other important legislative measures that will combat this problem. For example, Rep. Capps, offered in the 108th Congress the Domestic Violence Screening, and Treatment Act of 2003 that gave States the option to cover domestic violence screening and treatment services under Medicaid. One hundred and twenty two of our colleagues supported this bill, yet it was never brought to the House floor for consideration. Rep. Rothman offered in the 108th Congress the Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act that among other things would allow States that authorize law enforcement to confiscate guns in certain domestic violence to receive Federal grants. As legislators, we must be leaders and take sensible and needed actions to renew our commitment to eliminate domestic violence. Recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month is an important first step but it should not be only action in the 109th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary resolution and by supporting this resolution today make, a commitment to taking even more steps to eliminating domestic violence.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today on the floor we have what is increasingly rare these days, a bipartisan bill, a bill that would help thousands of Head Start children and their families. Head Start has worked well for 40 years. It has changed lives for the better. It is one of the great successes of our government. That is documented. Now, this bill is not perfect, but it makes some positive changes. I am pleased that the bill avoids the proposed use of State block grants. It improves the academic content and requirements. It requires coordination between Head Start and State-run kindergarten programs. It improves the prospect for children of migrant and seasonal workers, of service men and women, of Native Americans. The legislation strengthens accountability. We still have a long way to go to give all eligible children the benefits of Head Start, but basically this is a good bill. It is a good bipartisan bill that is about to be destroyed by an insidious amendment. It is an amendment that would allow American tax dollars, tax dollars of ordinary Americans, all Americans, to be used for religious discrimination. We cannot allow that. The nondiscrimination provision of Head Start has been reauthorized in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. No changes were proposed or made in the civil rights provision during those reauthorizations, but now the nondiscrimination provision would be thrown out. Let us remember why we have this nondiscrimination provision. It is to protect freedom of religion, of religious belief and practice. It is to protect religious belief and practice. That is why it is so important not to mix that up in here. It is a good bill. We would like to keep this as a bipartisan bill. We do not want to go back to the days where one would say Catholics need not apply, Jews need not apply. If Members do not want to go back to those days, vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as we face the concern about the United States' ability to sustain its scientific and technological superiority throughout this decade and beyond, when we are losing jobs to more technologically literate nations, and when our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education is in need of serious attention and renovation, it is important that we consider this resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives, and in particular with the toys that we, or our children, grandchildren, or family members play with today. That is why today I am introducing along with Representative Vernon Ehlers a resolution recognizing the importance and positive contributions of chemistry to our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. We have all seen the joy and wonder of children at play, and we can certainly all recall our favorite childhood toys, such as Silly Putty, the Slinky, and the Etch-a-Sketch. In fact, the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission carried Silly Putty with them to alleviate boredom and to help fasten down tools during periods of weightlessness. Silly Putty came to us as a product of chemistry; Silly Putty is a polymer of isoprene. BusinessWeek Online ran an article with the subtitle ``Toymakers are pushing the boundaries in artificial intelligence, wireless communications, and virtual realities. And the benefits are flowing to other industries as well.'' The military, the medical field, gamers, chemists, and material scientists all connect to the toy industry. Chemists and material scientists have created such materials as self- healing plastics, giving toys and many other consumer goods a longer lifetime. The curiosity that toys ignite through the ``why did it do that?'' and ``how did that happen?'' invigorate the exploration and discovery of the world around us. Many scientists and engineers turn to toys for moments of respite and of inspiration. Innovations in technology, at times can be traced back to moments with toys. That is why this year's's theme of National Chemistry Week, ``The Joy of Toys'', is relevant. What better ways to inspire and educate the potential chemists and engineers of tomorrow but through the loved experiences of playing with toys and learning what has made all the fun possible? Toys spark imagination, imagination fuels innovation. The celebration of chemistry, a science which is the backbone to the health of many industries including pharmaceuticals, electronics, automotive, and aerospace, through the chemistry of toys is worthy of our wholehearted support. It is in the best interest of our Nation to create both a curiosity and a desire to understand our world to fuel a technological and scientifically literate, critical thinking population to carry us forward in the 21st century.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the passing of Simon Wiesenthal, a man who dedicated his life to the search of fugitive Nazi war criminals. The ideals of truth and justice guided his effort to fight anti-Semitism and as we mourn, we are reminded of our commitment to these ideals as part of our duty to humanity. Simon Wiesenthal was born on December 31, 1908 in Buczacz, Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and now part of Ukraine. He received a degree in architectural engineering in 1932 from the Technical University of Prague, and in 1936 he began working at an architectural office in Lvov; he did not, however, continue his career in architecture. Three years later, with the partition of Poland and the flood of the Red Army in Lvov, Simon Wiesenthal began losing family members to German brutality. After escaping several near-death situations himself, in 1945 Simon Wiesenthal was liberated by American forces from the concentration camp of Mauthausen in Austria. After almost giving up, Simon Wiesenthal regained his strength and redefined his life's task as a quest for justice. He did not vow to fight for vengeance. Instead, the goal of his noble cause was to create a historical memory that would prevent any repetition of the horrible atrocities committed during the Holocaust. He was instrumental in tracking down fugitive Nazis, and a significant component of his mission was to pressure governments around the world to continue their pursuit and persecution of war criminals. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust carries on his legacy. Simon Wiesenthal was committed to the remembrance of those who he feared would be forgotten, and today we become committed to remembering him. While in Vienna in 1993, Simon Wiesenthal said, ``To young people here, I am the last. I'm the one who can still speak. After me, it's history.'' To continue his mission, we must not forget this history. We must continue to fight for the same principles that defined Simon Wiesenthal's objective. It is troubling that even today one of the most notorious sentiments of the Second World War--anti-Semitism--has yet to be eradicated. It is our duty to combat anti-Semitism and all religious bigotry whenever and wherever it arises. When asked why he chose to search for Nazi war criminals instead of continuing a career in architecture, Simon Wiesenthal responded: ``You're a religious man. You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, `What have you done?' there will be many answers. You will say, `I became a jeweler.' Another will say, `I smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Still another will say, `I built houses,' but I will say, `I didn't forget you.' '' And today, we must unite to say that we will not forget Simon Wiesenthal and we, as strong and responsible human beings, will carry forth his mission.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gary Mount on being named the 2005 Apple Grower of the Year by American/Western Fruit Grower magazine, sponsored by Cerexagri. This award recognizes the progressive approaches, hard work, and dedication to learning of a leading apple grower. New Jersey can be proud to have a native son singled out from among all the apple growers around the Nation. Mount, a resident of Lawrenceville, New Jersey, has honed his growing skills along with his wife Pam, co-owner of Terhune Orchards in Princeton. Although Mount had grown up on his father's 300-acre apple farm, he did not originally plan on a farming career. Instead, Mount graduated from Princeton University with a degree in physiological psychology and had planned on pursing his Ph.D. It was only after his experience of joining the Peace Corps and serving in the Central Pacific islands of Micronesia that Mount decided to dedicate his life to farming. For the past 30 years, Mount has continually pursued his quest to discover the best and most innovative farming techniques. Mount has demonstrated this commitment by attending industry meetings including serving as a member of the International Dwarf Fruit Tree Association, IDFTA for more than 25 years and on the board of directors for 11 years. Additionally, Mount has been treasurer of the New Jersey State Hort Society for about 12 years, former president of the New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, a New Jersey water commissioner for many years, and currently, a soil conservation district supervisor. Active also in New Jersey Farmland Preservation, Mount's efforts have helped growers pass on their land without fear of it being developed. Throughout his farming career, Mount has also considered it a top priority to have an environmentally sound approach to farming. Particularly on pest management issues, Mount has worked with Extension agents from Rutgers University to develop an integrated pest management, IPM program at Terhune Orchards. By informing his neighbors about his approach to pest management, and then, creating a poster with specialists at Rutgers explaining the practices and benefits of IPM that is displayed at farm markets, Mount has developed a trusting relationship with consumers who feel confident that the fruit they purchase has not been fertilized with hazardous chemicals. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire 12th district of New Jersey, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gary Mount on his 2005 Apple Grower of the Year award.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 208, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of Rosa Louise Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks challenged decades of social injustice and inequality; she opposed a racist authority; she initiated a movement of change. It was on that day 50 years ago, that a woman spoke up for not only herself, but for the freedoms of all people, everywhere when she refused to give up her seat. Ms. Parks' service to the civil rights movement began long before that fateful December day. Born and raised in Alabama, Rosa Louise McCauley attended the Alabama State Teachers College before marrying Raymond Parks in 1932. Together, they worked for the Montgomery branch chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Ms. Parks took on leadership roles in the organization, serving as a secretary and then as an advisor to the NAACP Youth Council. These efforts to improve the lives of those in segregated societies grew into a movement to end segregation outright. That movement found a voice in Rosa Parks. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks boarded a Montgomery city bus through the rear entrance. She sat in the section designated for ``colored.'' She obeyed the ludicrous segregation laws until a white man, wanting a seat, demanded hers. It was then that Ms. Parks decided that her compliance would end. Ms. Parks was arrested for her civil disobedience. The arrest incited a reaction. Ms. Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and others channeled that reaction to form one of the most powerful and positive movements in world history. The following day, civil rights advocates organized a boycott of the bus system that lasted for 381 days. On November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation on the transportation system was unconstitutional and this provided one of the first victories for desegregation. We recognize the many people responsible for the effective boycott and the tremendous support of civil rights leadership. But, today, we celebrate the woman who imbued the movement with such dedication, dignity, and courage. Rosa Parks' commitment to civil rights continued with her work in the office of my colleagues, Representative John Conyers, Jr., from 1965- 1988. In 1987, she established the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development to motivate youths. She has been honored for her contributions to society with the NAACP's Springarn Medal in 1979, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Nonviolent Peace Prize in 1980, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, and the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999. Let us honor the 50th anniversary of Ms. Parks' refusal to give up her seat. Let us celebrate the lifetime achievements of a truly incredible woman. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 208.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the so-called Child Safety Act, H.R. 3132, because it forsakes meaningful crime reduction in favor of ineffective solutions that will only create a false illusion that our children are better protected from sexual abuse. We have all read with heartbreak and anger the horrible, the terrible stories of sexual abuse, abduction, and murder of children. It is clear that we need to protect children from sexual predators and pedophiles through stronger laws and better enforcement. I realize that voting against a bill with a title as attractive as this is easily misunderstood and mischaracterized. But I have never been one to vote for form over substance, nor to shy away from standing up for what is right regardless of the political slings and arrows. Unfortunately, this bill will do more harm than good, and in the balance will do precious little to make our children safer. I hope the Senate will do better. We need a real system that gives parents peace of mind and enables them to be aware of the presence of pedophiles in their neighborhood. A National Sex Offender Registry, that is maintained by the United States Department of Justice is a very good idea that I support. Members of every local community would be able to access this registry online, and be able to keep tabs on those who may pose harm to our children. States would notify each other when sex offenders move between States, and reporting requirements would be uniform so that it's easier to keep the lists current and accurate. This is a sensible thing that we should be doing to protect our children. I would be proud to support it and I hope it will be addressed on the floor in a more rational way. That leads me to my overriding criticism of this bill: Its flaws are so troubling and fundamental that it compels me to oppose passage despite my support of one component part. This bill creates 36 new mandatory minimum penalties. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They discount mitigating factors in crimes, prevent judges from meting out punishments that are tailored to the criminal, and have been proven discriminatory to people of color. They do not work. They may make legislators feel good but they have been shown not to reduce crime rates. Even the Judicial Conference, the group that represents Federal judges, has said that mandatory minimums violate common sense. Let me explain how just one of the new minimums will make us less safe, instead of more. If a previously convicted but released sex offender commits a technical violation of the reporting requirements--for example, they miss the registration deadline by a day or a week--they would receive a mandatory 5-year sentence. There is no discussion, and there can be no evaluation by a Federal judge. The result is that sex offenders who miss the deadline or commit other technical violations will only be driven underground. Instead of turning themselves in, they will go under the radar and into unsuspecting communities. This is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen. Also troubling is the fact that this legislation creates two additional death penalties. Yet, research has shown that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let me repeat, the death penalty simply does not reduce crime. Those who commit the most heinous and terrible crimes against our children should have to face being locked away for the rest of their lives, where they must contemplate their crimes until the end of their days, without posing harm to society. But expanding the already ineffective death penalty to crimes where the victim's death is not even intentional is not only illogical, it is immoral. The government's job is to prevent crime and punish criminals, often severely. But killing citizens in order to exact retribution is inappropriate for a government that seeks to be moral. We do need a Child Safety Act, but it should be a real one. We need sensible punishments and preventative measures that will actually reduce sexual predation, not just talk tough. I am very disappointed that this bill weakens sound registration requirements and penalties by stacking them on fundamentally flawed provisions. It is my hope that sensible actions to protect our children are considered at the earliest possible date.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for yielding me time, and I thank the sponsor of this bill for introducing it. We all rise today to honor the passengers and the crew of United Airlines Flight 93. They gave their lives so that others might live, and I strongly support S. Con. Res. 26, which commemorates the courageous actions of these 40 passengers and crew. The passengers thwarted a potentially dangerous attack on a target here in Washington. Without their sacrifice, it is possible that many of us would not be here today. This building in which we stand perhaps would not be here, and almost certainly many innocent civilians would have died. Eighteen of those brave men and women on board Flight 93 were from New Jersey. One of those brave souls lived in Cranberry, New Jersey. He is one of the people on board we recognize. He has become something of a symbol. Todd Beamer was a respected businessman who stood out in a national company. He was a man of deep religious faith. He was involved with his family, a loving father who looked forward to the upcoming birth of his third child. He was a caring and devoted husband to his wife, Lisa, whom I would also like to recognize and honor here today. It was his famous phrase, ``Let's roll,'' that helped inspire our Nation to meet his high standard of shared sacrifice and to remind Americans in those dark days following September 11 that America would not just survive but America would thrive. This body authorized the naming of the United States Post Office in Cranberry after Todd Beamer. And each time I see the Todd Beamer Post Office, I am reminded that individual Americans can and do extraordinary things. Americans are willing to sacrifice in the name of accomplishing something greater than one person. This country has always depended on this unique character, and it was always my hope that people would use this post office with an understanding of this American characteristic and that they would pause to reflect on the sacrifice of the individual but also on their roles, what they can do in small and large acts of bravery. Todd Beamer was not alone. With him were other New Jerseyans and Americans who shared his values and commitment to save others. Richard Guadagno was another outstanding passenger of Flight 93. Raised in Trenton, Richard was the manager of the Humbolt Bay National Wildlife Refuge in California, and was on his way back to Eureka, California, after visiting his family in New Jersey and attending his grandmother's 100th birthday party. He too made the sacrifice. I had an opportunity to talk with his parents, and I was struck by how remarkable and compassionate Richard Guadagno was. Today we honor him and all the other passengers and crew members. Recalling the legacy of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 reminds Americans that we need heroes every day. Lisa and Todd Beamer's children can grow up knowing that their father acted bravely at a time when others were in need; and he will always be remembered as a hero, along with his fellow passengers. Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this resolution, and I thank the sponsors for introducing it. As it is said in Jewish tradition, whoever saves a single life is honored as though he saved an entire world. I honor those on Flight 93 whose brave acts saved the lives of so many Americans.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to read into the Record an insightful article by Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, one of the Nation's leading authorities on health care economics and a distinguished resident of central New Jersey. Dr. Reinhardt is known for his health care economics, but here he articulates the danger of what economists call the ``moral hazard'' we are currently facing with regard to Iraq. Economists refer to moral hazard when people, insensitive to the costs of their actions, increase the costs to others. With regard to Iraq, we have a situation in which the vast majority of policymakers and the general public are utterly insulated from the human and financial costs of the war. Dr. Reinhardt, as the father of a U.S. Marine, personally understands the angst that families feel every day about loved ones serving in harm's way. President Bush has taken to analogizing the war in Iraq to the American Revolution and, most recently, the Second World War. What follows is an opinion article written by Dr. Reinhardt that appeared in the Washington Post last month, in August, entitled ``Who is Paying For Our Patriotism?'' I will insert the entire article for the Record. Dr. Reinhardt writes, ``President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the Nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course. ``Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort, neither blood nor angst nor taxes, on well over 95 percent of the American people? At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each one of them, some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan, or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars. ``The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money costs of the wars to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they financed the wars not with taxes, but by borrowing abroad.'' Dr. Reinhardt continues, ``The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called `moral hazard' in the context of health insurance, a field in which,'' Dr. Reinhardt says, ``I have done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the costs they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional and financial cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well? ``A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill-prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty ship every 2 weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. ``Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors of the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``Moral hazard,'' he says, ``also can explain why the general public is also so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops.'' But at the same time we allow families of Reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battle fields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs in a Nation with a $13 trillion economy. When our son, says Dr. Reinhardt, then a Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him, do what you must. But be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this Nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full article of Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, ``Who's Paying for Our Patriotism?'' appear at this point in the Record. President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course. Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort--neither blood nor angst nor taxes--on well over 95 percent of the American people? At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars. The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars-- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad. Dr. Reinhardt continues: The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called ``moral hazard'' in the context of health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional--and financial--cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well? A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan? Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs--in a nation with a $13 trillion economy! Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by ``supporting our troops''? When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: ``Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded.'' The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them. Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for the time. As we look at repairs of levees and improving public health mechanisms and so forth, many Americans might not realize that there are other things we must tend to. I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for recognizing that we need to help those who are in the midst of their education. This legislation is a good first step on the floor. I think that the legislation offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and others of us that deals with readjusting what families are expected to pay for college for the current term and making it more than optional for a university to recalculate families contributions and providing deferment of 6 months for student borrowers, those additional steps I think would be very important. I particularly commend to this body the legislation that is offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and others of us, and I hope that those provisions can be added. I nevertheless want to strongly support what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) has done. It will help many students who are disrupted, whose education would otherwise be disrupted by these activities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I joined a number of New Jersey officials and citizens in filing suit in Federal court in an effort to overturn the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission's decision to uphold the Pentagon's recommendation to close Fort Monmouth. This lawsuit is about protecting our men and women in the field. They are fighting for us every day, and I'm going to continue fighting for them. Closing Fort Monmouth would disrupt their current efforts and jeopardize their safety and effectiveness. Eleven generals and the BRAC Commission itself recognized the dangers involved. In making its recommendation pertaining to Fort Monmouth, the BRAC Commission exceeded its authority and failed to comply with statutorily required procedures. Our lawsuit does not ask the court to revisit the data or arguments reviewed by the BRAC Commission. We are simply asking the court to review the process and determine whether the BRAC Commission failed to comply with the BRAC Acts of 2005 and 1990. If we win, the remedy is simple: take the fort off the list. Even as we continue to fight for Fort Monmouth, we must also plan for a future that may not include it. The men and women who work at Fort Monmouth deserve nothing less, and I am working with Federal, State, and local leaders to develop a comprehensive plan for Monmouth County's future that will give us the best opportunity to preserve jobs, stimulate our economy, and enhance our quality of life.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers today, and for the last few days, have been with the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and their family members. The Gulf Coast region has experienced what will long be remembered as one of the worse natural disasters in our country's history. In the weeks, months and years to come a massive clean up will occur and then we will work to rebuild the homes, roads, businesses, and schools affected. But we will not be able to forget the death, the destruction or the emotional toll this terrible tragedy has inflicted on the people affected and across the Gulf Coast. I am glad that we in Congress are providing the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the additional funds required to ensure that the needed rescue and recovery mission continues unimpeded. We have all seen on the television and read in the newspapers about the current situation in the Gulf Coast. The images and stories are heartbreaking and deeply troubling, but they are of people we know and they are our fellow citizens. Many of us know people who live in New Orleans, might have been vacationing there, or were supposed to return to college this fall. These are our family members, our friends, and our neighbors, and we cannot let them down. My own sister lives in the heart of New Orleans and as we meet now she still waits for evacuation--for the fifth day without running water or power. The essential role of government is to provide for its citizens in their time of need. Today, we cannot say that we have done a good job in that critical task. Too many of our own people are suffering in horrific conditions and there exists a general state of lawlessness in a few areas and more concerning is that many feel they have been abandoned. If we cannot meet the needs of these clearly desperate citizens in the Gulf Coast, we need to seriously reconsider our budget priorities and what we value as a society. I am troubled that the pleas of regional officials and those from cities like New Orleans for an increased Federal commitment to guard against such storms have not been heeded over the past few years. It is my deep hope that the Federal Government, with the money we are providing today, will ensure that order is restored to the affected region and that no one anywhere in the Gulf Coast is without food, water or shelter. But in the weeks and months ahead we need also to ensure that the proper resources are dedicated to guarantee that a tragedy like this and its indescribable scale is not repeated again. What that means is a commitment by the Federal Government to the people of America to meet their domestic needs. For too long this government has tried to do more with less, it has tried to provide for our people on the cheap. But this week has reminded us that there are too many critical tasks and services that only government can provide and that we ensure that the Federal Government provides the essential funding that these services require. This terrible tragedy has also reminded us of the generous and compassionate nature of the American people. Already the Red Cross has received well over $100 million in donations to the relief effort. People all across America are emptying their coin jars and offering empty rooms to help in anyway they can. I know that this compassion will continue and I encourage all Americans to do what ever they can to help our fellow citizens in their most desperate time of need. However, I am troubled to see instances of greed in this time of desperate need. I have heard already from a number of my constituents who saw the price of gas skyrocket. I, along with other Members of Congress, will be looking into any instances of price gouging. In such a time of despair for so many, price gouging can not be tolerated Once again, I want to express my condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and to share my prayers of hope for those who remain in despair. I know that much remains to be done and I am hopeful that the funding we are providing today will go a long way to meeting the desperate needs of those in the Gulf Coast. The full story of this disaster remains to be told, but I am confident that out of dark moments of this tragedy will come beacons of light for those affected and a serious discussion about our true national priorities.