Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), my colleague. (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am delighted to hear that my colleague has studied Japanese. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues pass this resolution and work with me on other language projects to see that we address this Sputnik moment that this country faces and that we work hard to address our poor, I would use that word, language proficiency here in the United States, for reasons of culture, for reasons of economics and for reasons of national security. I urge the passage of H. Res. 122. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 45, legislation recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education. I was pleased to join my colleagues in passing this bipartisan proposal yesterday in the House of Representatives. The advantages of studying music are not confined within the artistic sphere. Music education not only allows children a chance to create and appreciate all types of music, but it has been proven once and again that an awareness of the structure of music can actually help children do better in school. There is a growing amount of evidence indicating that young children who are exposed to the fundamentals of music develop stronger abstract reasoning skills, which are crucial for a broad understanding of mathematics and the sciences. However, many of the advantages of music education cannot be quantified or studied with tests. The creative thinking and self-esteem that emerge from music education are essential for a full and meaningful life. Participation in music education can motivate students to become active members of the education process. Thirty-six percent of minority students reported their music teacher as their role model; a much higher percentage than any other discipline. As a teacher, I recognize this bond between teacher and student as one of the most important aspects of education itself. In addition, music celebrates two of the most important values of our Nation; diversity and unity. By studying different cultures through the harmony of music, students are able to recognize the values that we all share. No other discipline embodies this spirit more than music education. Mr. Speaker, music education enhances intellectual development and enriches the academic environment for children of all ages, and as a result enriches our communities as well. I am proud to join with my colleagues in passing this bipartisan resolution in recognition of these facts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose this rule to H.R. 27, the Workforce Investment Act. The gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the committee on which I serve, is correct. The Workforce Investment Act has been successful. The renewal that is proposed to us today, however, is a step backwards; and we will hear a great deal about that. There were amendments that were proposed that have not been made in order. These amendments would have created a separate authorization for infrastructure funding for one-stop centers, would have struck the provisions regarding personal reemployment accounts. There was an amendment that would have struck the provisions to consolidate the funding of adult, dislocated worker and employment service; and an amendment that I would like to address at this moment that I offered that would have increased the authorization by $750 million for job training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2006, Mr. Speaker, funding for the Workforce Investment Act has been reduced by three-quarters of a billion dollars. This is for a program that works. But the funding has been reduced. My amendment would have restored this funding. However, the Committee on Rules did not see fit to accept the amendment. At a time when there are 7.7 million people unemployed, not counting those who have fallen off the rolls, 4.5 million working part- time because they cannot find a full-time job that they need, we should be doing more. Through the one-stop delivery system, job seekers have access to labor market information, job counseling, and job training to help them get back on their feet. Back in 1998 when this bill, this program, was first passed, David Broder wrote an article. He said: When Senator Paul Wellstone walked off the floor arm in arm with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, bipartisan I should point out, Paul Wellstone said, ``Mike, this may not be the lead story on the network news, but it's a good piece of work.'' Well, indeed it was not the lead story on the network news. David Broder reports, It was hard to find a trace of their bill. The news at that time was overwhelmed, overtaken by scandals. But as says Broder, In communities less consumed by scandal than Washington, the impact of the measure that DeWine and Wellstone and others had fashioned may be felt in real lives long after the memories of the scandals have faded. In a dynamic economy where technological changes and market shifts are forcing layoffs of some people even as other jobs are being created, the key is to equip workers with needed skills and then link them efficiently to the vacancies. That is what this legislation is intended to do. It should be authorized at a greater amount. Said Broder back then, The workers will never know the names of the legislators, but they are in their debt. Unfortunately, the workers who do not get to take advantage of this program because it is underfunded will never know what they have missed, and we have let them down. We should oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act was one of these pieces of legislation that actually helps people. It was passed back in 1998. Unfortunately, this is a step backward as it comes before us today. The bill now here would create block grants to fund the adult dislocated worker and employment service programs. And as we know, funding through nearly every past block grant program has led to decreases in funding in just about every education or labor program that was block granted. In addition, the proposal here would reduce and restrict services for in-school youths. It would fund one-stop infrastructure by siphoning off funds used to serve veterans and individuals with disabilities; and importantly, the legislation before us here would allow discrimination in hiring based on individuals's religious beliefs. Under current religious law, organizations are free to make employment decisions using religious criteria with their own money. Why should we allow organizations to discriminate with taxpayer dollars? It really would roll back 40 years of civil rights laws and decades of job training laws as we have heard here today. The Workforce Investment Act was intended to be about helping hard working Americans find jobs and help those who have a job receive training to improve their employment prospects. This is, I repeat, the kind of legislation that could actually help people. These one-stop centers have been a success. But this legislation does not provide adequate authorized funding for them and it changes many of the good features that have been part of the Workforce Investment Act. We could be closing the skills gap, but unfortunately, the bill does not do that. It is a step backward from the legislation that was passed in 1998.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of Nagorno Karabakh who began their National Freedom Movement seventeen years ago. On February 20, 1988, the people of Nagorno Karabakh officially petitioned the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for reunification with Armenia. This region had been placed within the borders of Azerbaijan in 1921 under the rule of Stalin, even though 96 percent of the population of Nagorno Karabakh was ethnically Armenian. The response from Azerbaijan and the former Soviet Union on this request was violent. Military attacks against Nagorno Karabakh followed, resulting in a brutal campaign of aggression largely ignored by the outside world. This did not cause the people of Nagorno Karabakh to falter, for they continued to defend their freedom. Since declaring independence in 1991, the Nagorno Karabakh Republic has grown into an active and prosperous democracy. The first plenary sitting of the 10th session of the NKR National Assembly of the 3rd calling took place on February 9, 2005. The people of Nagorno Karabakh should be commended for their commitment to democracy and achieving sovereignty in the face of strong opposition from neighboring nations. The United States is honored to share such fundamental values with Nagorno Karabakh as democracy, liberty, and a profound respect for human rights. The people of the United States stand by our friends in Nagorno Karabakh in hoping for a peaceful resolution to their ongoing conflict with the Republic of Azerbaijan. Just as the people of Nagorno Karabakh saw the necessity of a peaceful secession from Azerbaijan seventeen years ago, so too must a peaceful resolution be achieved with this current conflict. For a people who have suffered so much in pursuit of self- determination, the citizens of Nagorno Karabakh must not abandon hope for a greater future. Through their faultless commitment to democratic values and preservation of human rights, Nagorno Karabakh has made a laudable effort to achieve peace and will soon inspire its Azerbaijani neighbors to return to the peace process. Like so many who have undergone the pains of oppression, the people of Nagorno Karabakh must rest assured knowing that democracy breeds peace. The United States will continue to promote the cause of our democratic friends in Nagorno Karabakh, not yielding until the goals set forth on February 20, 1988, have been realized in full.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I am happy that we are having this discussion of decency on the public airwaves today, and I am happy to be here with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who is one of the greatest champions in America for fair communication of ideas and artistic and creative thinking. I am surprised and disappointed, however, that this rule does not allow us to debate an issue that is just as important as public content, and that is diversity of viewpoints. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine has hurt the objectivity of the media, and an amendment dealing with this was denied. In recent months, we have seen the unfortunate result of media consolidation, lack of local programming control, balance of news and information. One broadcasting company tried to use the public airwaves to air an untruthful and damaging so-called documentary criticizing the war service of a Presidential candidate. We have discovered the administration is using taxpayer funds to pay broadcasters and unqualified journalists to advocate administration policies. Reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine would provide at least partial safeguard against such abuses. It would require broadcast licenses to cover both sides of issues or multiple sides of issues of public interest. As we are considering decency in the public airwaves, we should also give due consideration to fairness, truth, and balance on those same airwaves.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (H.R. 310). Like many Americans, I have been personally offended by the crudeness and licentiousness of some material that has made its way on the public airwaves. Television and radio networks that benefit from free use of the public airwaves have a responsibility to refrain from airing obscene material. Likewise, licensees must refrain from airing programming that is indecent or profane during normal family viewing hours. Parents should not be forced to dive for the remote control in order to protect their children from material that they are too young to see or hear. Since 1978, the Federal Communications Commission has had the authority to ``impose sanctions on licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting.'' Under current law, the maximum amount that a network can be fined for airing such content is $27,500. For huge broadcasting companies that reap billions in advertising revenue each year, this sum is an insufficient deterrent from breaking the law. I am happy to see that this legislation does not change existing law regarding the standards by which television or radio programming is judged to be indecent, profane, or obscene. I am wary of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries by becoming a kind of moral police. This legislation merely bolsters the ability of the FCC to levy appropriate punitive actions against networks that flagrantly violate the law. I am disappointed that Congress has declined to use this occasion to address an equally important issue in broadcasting--diversity of viewpoints. Until 1985, broadcasters benefiting from use of the public airwaves had a responsibility to demonstrate that their programming presented multiple viewpoints on issues of public interest. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the Reagan administration has hurt the objectivity of the media and the breadth of opinions that the public gets to hear. Americans deserve better than propaganda masquerading as news journalism. Though I intend to vote in favor of this legislation, the situation in which Congress finds itself is hardly ideal. Any time the Federal Government is forced by circumstances to strengthen limitations on the media, it must act with extreme caution at the risk of violating this country's most essential freedoms. It would be best if broadcasters would voluntarily adhere to high standards of decency with regard to the public airwaves. If broadcasters demonstrated the willingness and capacity to regulate themselves, this legislation would not be necessary. Unfortunately, some television and radio broadcasters have chosen to violate decency standards, judging that the ratings boon would be worth any fines that a violation would inevitably generate. It is my hope that the FCC will not be forced to use the authority that this legislation grants. I hope that passage of this legislation will provide an adequate deterrent to ensure that television and radio programming on public airwaves reflects public values. I support H.R. 310, imperfect though it may be.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on bills last week to designate the U.S. courthouse in Jacksonville, FL, as the ``John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse'' and the Federal building and U.S. courthouse in Dayton, OH, as the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' Had I been present for rollcall votes Nos. 21 and 22, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation honors and supports the ongoing efforts of our troops in Iraq and prays for the safety of all of our uniformed men and women still in the Gulf, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, now is also an opportune time for Congress to do more to help our Nation's new and old veterans in need. To this end, I am joined by my distinguished colleague, U.S. Representative Henry Brown, in introducing bipartisan legislation to urge the establishment of a ``National Hire-A-Veteran Week.'' Our legislation also urges a presidential proclamation calling upon employers, labor organizations, veterans' service organizations, and Federal, State, and local governmental agencies to employ more veterans. In spite of the best efforts of the U.S. Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, imposing barriers continue to impede many deserving veterans from securing employment and achieving self- sufficiency. Just this week, I read a disturbing article by Alexandra Marks that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and is entitled ``Back From Iraq--And Suddenly Out On The Streets.'' It should alert all of us to the grim reality that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are now showing up in our Nation's homeless shelters. I submit this article for entry into the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my statement. Sadly, many veterans struggle to find jobs, even with some opportunities for increased training and education offered through government programs. Little more than half of our Nation's veterans are employed today According to the 2000 census, for example, nearly 20 percent of Gulf War veterans are unemployed. Moreover, it is troubling and shameful that so many of our veterans who risked their own lives in support of our country can't find jobs and must endure homelessness and lives of poverty after they return home. Indeed, American veterans comprise one-third of the homeless male population in America; while an estimated 250,000 veterans live on our city streets. In fact, the number of homeless Vietnam War veterans today exceeds the number of service persons who died during that war. Mr. Speaker, even as we tend to the well-being of our men and women currently on active duty, we cannot forget those who have already served their country and deserve more assistance in moving to the next phase of their civilian lives. A presidential proclamation of ``National Hire-A-Veteran Week'' would provide an effective and more focused way to do more to help all of our veterans find good jobs and ensure better living standards for themselves and their families. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation and will take one more step to help repay the debt we owe to all of our Nation's defenders. I also hope it can be promptly enacted and signed into law during this session of Congress. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 8, 2005] Back From Iraq--And Suddenly Out On The Streets (By Alexandra Marks) New York.--Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are now showing up in the nation's homeless shelters. While the numbers are still small, they're steadily rising, and raising alarms in both the homeless and veterans' communities. The concern is that these returning veterans-- some of whom can't find jobs after leaving the military, others of whom are still struggling psychologically with the war--may be just the beginning of an influx of new veterans in need. Currently, there are 150,000 troops in Iraq and 16,000 in Afghanistan. More than 130,000 have already served and returned home. So far, dozens of them, like Herold Noel, a married father of three, have found themselves sleeping on the streets, on friends' couches, or in their cars within weeks of returning home. Two years ago, Black Veterans for Social Justice (BVSJ) in the borough of Brooklyn, saw only a handful of recent returnees. Now the group is aiding more than 100 Iraq veterans, 30 of whom are homeless. ``It's horrible to put your life on the line and then come back home to nothing, that's what I came home to: nothing. I didn't know where to go or where to turn,'' says Mr. Noel. ``I thought I was alone, but I found out there are a whole lot of other soldiers in the same situation. Now I want people to know what's really going on.'' After the Vietnam War, tens of thousands of veterans came home to a hostile culture that offered little gratitude and inadequate services, particularly to deal with the stresses of war. As a result, tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans still struggle with homelessness and drug addiction. Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are coming home to a very different America. While the Iraq war remains controversial, there is almost unanimous support for the soldiers overseas. And in the years since Vietnam, more than 250 nonprofit veterans' service organizations have sprouted up, many of them created by people like Peter Cameron, a Vietnam veteran who is determined that what happened to his fellow soldiers will not happen again. But he and dozens of other veterans' service providers are concerned by the increasing numbers of new veterans ending up on streets and in shelters. Part of the reason for these new veterans' struggles is that housing costs have skyrocketed at the same time real wages have remained relatively stable, often putting rental prices out of reach. And for many, there is a gap of months, sometimes years, between when military benefits end and veterans benefits begin. ``We are very much committed to helping veterans coming back from this war,'' says Mr. Cameron, executive director of Vietnam Veterans of California. ``But the [Department of Veterans Affairs] already has needs it can't meet and there's a lot of fear out there that programs are going to be cut even further.'' Beyond the yellow ribbons Both the Veterans Administration and private veterans service organizations are already stretched, providing services for veterans of previous conflicts. For instance, while an estimated 500,000 veterans were homeless at some time during 2004, the VA had the resources to tend to only 100,000 of them. ``You can have all of the yellow ribbons on cars that say `Support Our Troops' that you want, but it's when they take off the uniform and transition back to civilian life that they need support the most,'' says Linda Boone, executive director of The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. After the Vietnam conflict, it was nine to 12 years before veterans began showing up at homeless shelters in large numbers. In part, that's because the trauma they experienced during combat took time to surface, according to one Vietnam veteran who's now a service provider. Doctors refer to the phenomenon as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A recent study published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that 15 to 17 percent of Iraq vets meet ``the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or PTSD.'' Of those, only 23 to 40 percent are seeking help-- in part because so many others fear the stigma of having a mental disorder. Many veterans' service providers say they're surprised to see so many Iraq veterans needing help so soon. ``This kind of inner city, urban guerrilla warfare that these veterans are facing probably accelerates mental-health problems,'' says Yogin Ricardo Singh, director of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program at BVSJ. ``And then there's the soldier's mentality: Asking for help is like saying, 'I've failed a mission.' It's very hard for them to do.'' Beyond PTSD and high housing costs, many veterans also face an income void, as they search for new jobs or wait for their veterans benefits to kick in. When Mr. Noel was discharged in December of 2003, he and his family had been living in base housing in Georgia. Since they were no longer eligible to live there, they began the search for a new home. But Noel had trouble landing a job and the family moved to New York, hoping for help from a family member. Eventually, they split up: Noel's wife and infant child moved in with his sister-in-law, and his twins were sent to relatives in Florida. Noel slept in his car, on the streets, and on friend's couches. Last spring he was diagnosed with PTSD, and though he's currently in treatment, his disability claim is still being processed. Unable to keep a job so far, he's had no steady income, although an anonymous donor provided money for him to take an apartment last week. He expects his family to join him soon. `Nobody understood . . . the way I was' Nicole Goodwin is another vet diagnosed with PTSD who has yet to receive disability benefits. Unable to stay with her mother, she soon found herself walking the streets of New York, with a backpack full of her belongings and her 1-year- old daughter held close. ``When I first got back I just wanted to jump into a job and forget about Iraq, but the culture shock from the military to the civilian world hit me,'' she says. ``I was depressed for months. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't eat. The worst thing wasn't the war, it was coming back, because nobody understood why I was the way I was.'' Ms. Goodwin was determined not to sleep on the streets, and so eventually went into the New York City shelter system where, after being shuffled from shelter to shelter, she was told she was ineligible for help. But media attention changed that, and she was able to obtain a rent voucher. With others' generosity, she also found a job. She's now attending college and working with other veterans who are determined to go to Washington with their stories. ``When soldiers get back, they should still be considered military until they can get on their feet,'' she says. ``It's a month-to-month process, trying to actually function again. It's not easy, it takes time.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce two new bipartisan bills to provide more federal support for the preservation and protection of the endangered Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields and related historic sites in New Jersey and many other states. I am especially pleased that U.S. Representatives Jo Ann Davis, Maurice Hinchey, John McHugh, Ed Markey, John Sweeney, and Mark Souder have joined me as original cosponsors of this much-needed legislation. In 1996, the Congress enacted the American Battlefield Protection Act, which established the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) within the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). At the same time, the Congress directed the U.S. Park Service to conduct a comprehensive study of endangered Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites for submission to the Congress, to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and to the Office of Management and Budget. The U.S. Park Service study is to be completed in the coming spring and opened for at least a 90-day public comment period. In my home state of New Jersey, many sites have already been surveyed and ranked highly for preservation. Preliminary surveys indicate that five New Jersey sites are in the most jeopardy (the Trenton, Princeton, and Monmouth Battlefields plus Fort Lee and the Second Springfield Battlefield) and three of those lie in the heart of the 12th Congressional District which I am privileged to represent. Current federal law authorizes and appropriates monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the preservation and protection of Civil War battlefields and related sites. One of my bills--The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act--would do the same for the hallowed battlefields of the Revolutionary War (e.g. Trenton, Princeton, Monmouth) and the War of 1812 and related historical sites that are also in danger of being lost forever. The enactment of this bill would allow National Park Service officials to collaborate with state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and concerned individuals to preserve and protect endangered Revolutionary War and War of 1812 historical sites on the priority lists of the forthcoming Park Service study and to provide up to 50 percent of the costs, for example, of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl. My second bill--The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefields Commemorative Coin Act--would provide a non-federal fiinding mechanism to provide even more funding for the preservation and protection of endangered Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields and related historical sites. It would authorize the minting of $3.5 million in gold, silver, and clad commemorative coins to be sold to the public at surcharges of $3-$35, thus generating as much as $23.5 million in seed money. Upon collection of these proceeds, the U.S. Treasury Secretary would transfer them to the non-partisan, non-profit Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefields Foundation to be used exclusively for these expressed preservation and protection purposes. It would cost U.S. taxpayers nothing. The greatest beneficiaries of these two bills would be future generations of Americans who will be able to relive more of the history of the Revolutionary War era and the War of 1812, the early development of our Nation, and the critically important roles played by the people of New Jersey and the other original thirteen colonies and the Northwest Territory.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This legislation was crafted under the guise of protecting our borders and improving homeland security. However, it would make it more difficult for victims of persecution to obtain asylum impose expensive mandates on the States, and authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws to construct barriers at our international borders--none of which will make this country any safer from terrorists. This legislation would also effectively undo the important immigration and security reforms passed by the 108th Congress, putting us at greater risk for future attacks. The 9/11 Commission's immigration-related recommendations focused on targeting terrorist travel through reliable identification systems and effective, integrated information sharing. Instead, this legislation seeks to change immigration laws broadly and in ways unrelated to essential intelligence reform. This legislation would expand the authority for expedited alien removal without further hearing or review, impose stringent restrictions on asylum seekers hoping to be given an interview with an asylum officer, and require unreasonable standards of proof for aliens seeking asylum. None of the 9/11 hijackers sought or were granted asylum; rather, they were granted legal visas to enter the United States using fraudulent documents overseas. Furthermore, current law explicitly bars terrorists or members of terrorist organizations from gaining asylum, and asylum-seekers already undergo thorough background checks through the FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State databases. The onerous restrictions offered by H.R. 418 would keep highly-vulnerable victims of heinous crimes from escaping their persecutors, and they do not address the real vulnerabilities in our immigration system. A report released this week by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom underscores the dangerous impact these so-called reforms would have on our asylum process. According to the commission, the current expedited removal process in the U.S. places victims of persecution at great risk for further trauma, while the severity of conditions and deprivation imposed on asylum seekers was ``shocking.'' Rather than address this serious situation in the ways recommended by the commission, today this Congress would force even more innocent asylum seekers into expedited removal or send them back to their persecutors without an opportunity to appeal their case to an immigration judge. H.R. 418 would also impose statutory requirements for State-issued driver's licenses and repeal the important identification security measures enacted by the bipartisan Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Rather than permit local, State, and Federal officials to work together to create minimum security standards for driver's licenses and identification cards as authorized by Congress last year, H.R. 418 would mandate statutory standards for States and require them to share personal information on all licensed drivers in a massive national database. H.R. 418 would dismantle the carefully crafted immigration and security reforms enacted by Congress last year in the Intelligence Reform bill. That law will toughen our border security by adding 10,000 new border patrol agents over the next 5 years, strengthening visa application requirements, and adding 4,000 new immigration and customs investigators. It fortifies identification security while allowing the State officials charged with making those changes to be a part of the process. Mr. Chairman, this law implemented key 9/11 Commission recommendations without jeopardizing our legal immigration system or the ability of legitimate asylum seekers to escape persecution. Our country was founded on the principle of immigration, and we must not close our doors to those who lawfully seek to share in the freedom and democracy that Americans have always held dear. The Congress must do everything in its power to protect our citizens and our borders. H.R. 418, however, does not achieve those important goals, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res 23, celebrating the contribution of Catholic schools in promoting academic excellence and helping to develop and shape our Nations youth. Catholic schools are exceptional at providing students with an opportunity to understand better ethnic diversity. Nearly 2.5 million students were enrolled in Catholic schools for the 2004-2005 school year, and more than 26 percent of them were from minority backgrounds. I recently had the opportunity to visit Villa Victoria Academy, an exemplary Catholic school in the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey, on the occasion of their 70th Anniversary Celebration. Villa Victoria has an outstanding graduating class of 2005, with 5 National Merit Commended Students and a National Merit Hispanic Scholar. In addition, many of the students have received early acceptances to some of the top colleges and universities in the country, including University of Pennsylvania, University of Notre Dame, and Boston College. In addition to traditional scholastic achievement, Catholic schools have also been in the forefront in providing students opportunities in music and arts. Garett Vitanza, the 2004 Congressional Arts Competition winner from my district, is a graduate of Cardinal McCarrick High School in South Amboy, New Jersey. As a student at Cardinal McCarrick, Garrett was able to excel in a nontraditional academic field that he was truly passionate in. It is reaffirming to see that Catholic schools continue to offer various courses in arts and music, along with customary courses in math, science, English and history at all levels, including honor and advanced placement courses. I would like to commend the teachers, parents, and school administrators for their hardwork in making a strong learning environment for students at Catholic schools. Students are given a diverse education, that emphasizes not only on academics, but also character traits that students continue to develop throughout their life. I would also like to congratulate the hard work and continued success of the students of Catholic schools. These students continue to achieve great things and continually have positive effects on their communities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res. 16, which commemorates the 60th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Yesterday, I went to New York to attend the United Nations first commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz. It was an incredible day--the first of its kind. It gave me hope that we, as a world, may be learning lessons so desperately needed. Among other things, yesterday's General Assembly session was a reminder that we, as a country and a world community, must not forget the battles we have waged in the name of humanity. This anniversary provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the horrors that occurred at Auschwitz, and to commemorate the lives of those it took. But it is more than that. That, I suppose, is something we all know. Hearing the stories of Auschwitz is difficult. It is tempting to want to avoid these horrific memories--to bury the Holocaust deep, so that it will not haunt us. But understanding the immeasurable wrongs the Jewish people have endured--and the scale on which they occurred--is vital to understanding our world today. It is also vital to understanding the depravity of which human beings, when hardened to others' suffering, are capable. It is only through the process of acknowledging and discussing these horrific events that we can prevent similar iniquity in the future. Anniversaries, as I have said, give rise to reflection. But understanding our past and respecting each other's differences have never been more vital that they are today. Distrust, misunderstanding, and hate have found fertile ground in many parts of the world. We see it in the Sudan, for example. We must meet this challenge by demanding that all world leaders anticipate, understand, and address the issues that emerge from poverty, injustice, militarism, and racism. A good speech can move its audience, but speech without action does nothing for those who most need the words to mean something. As U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan reminded us yesterday, in the 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, the world has failed more than once to prevent genocide. As we look around the world today, we must open our eyes to the many horrific examples of inhumanity that we are allowing to continue. The Secretary General recounted the history and pointed out that like Israel, the founding of the United Nations in a real sense was a direct response to the Holocaust. The international community must deal honestly with the Holocaust and with the atrocities that are occurring at this very moment. We must acknowledge its roots, and anti-Semitism persist in too many places around the globe. World leaders must shake themselves out of indifference and rise above political considerations. They must use their position to combat the intolerance that has been allowed to fester for too long. Without an honest assessment and vigilant commitment, we fail to learn the lessons of Auschwitz and prevent the recurrence of these crimes against humanity. I urge my colleagues to do more than vote for this resolution today. We must work within our communities and across borders to foster respect for all people and deepen understanding of other cultures. We must reach out to the organizations and community groups that teach values such as tolerance and diversity to our young people. We must challenge the seeds of hate before they take root, even when it means confronting our friends. Failing to take these steps is more than a moral failing on our part. It is a failure to make good on the promise we made at Auschwitz six decades ago.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not frivolous. This is not about sour grapes. This is not about conspiracy theories. This is about the central act of democracy. Here in the House of Representatives all members have been elected. Some of us have been elected in recounts. What are recounts? They are independent checks of the tally. Reliable knowledge is verifiable knowledge. As my colleagues know, I am a scientist. It is a principle of scientific thinking that one person's claim must be subject to independent confirmation or correction. I agree with Senator John Kerry. We should today award Ohio's electoral votes to President Bush. I believe President Bush got more votes in Ohio then did Senator Kerry. I believe it. I cannot confirm it. No one can confirm it. Consider electronic voting machines. If there was an error between the voter casting the vote on the touch screen and the recording of an electronic signal in a memory bank, no one will ever know. It might be a software error; it would not necessarily be a malicious conspiracy. But if the vote is recorded incorrectly, no one will ever know. I ask my colleagues, can anyone say he or she knows that the actual vote is what has been presented to us? The answer is no. None of us can say this knowledge has been independently verified. It is not reliable knowledge unless it is verified knowledge. This is not a philosophical fine point. Americans don't want to and should not have to take the results simply on faith. The electronic machines used in Ohio and most other States are not designed to be verifiable. Recounts are meaningless. Self-government works only if we believe it does. A loss of confidence in our system is fatal to a democratic republic such as ours. That confidence has been eroded over the years and has taken some body blows in recent years. We need a major effort to shore up our democracy. Americans are a trusting people, but we demand evidence. We demand verification. We are also a pragmatic people, and so we in the House will not upset the apple cart today. Without doubt we will endorse the electoral votes presented to us today. But we should not be satisfied. Republicans should not be satisfied. Democrats should not be satisfied. The reason is not that President Bush got more votes. The reason is that the knowledge of President Bush's majority is unreliable knowledge. Anything of value should be auditable. Votes are valuable. Each voter should have the knowledge that the vote is recorded as intended. We are talking today about the heart of our democratic republic.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer keep our nation safe if we do not commit ourselves to learning the languages and cultures of critical areas around the world. The security of our troops overseas and the American people here at home demand that we act quickly to eliminate the severe shortage of critical need language professionals in this country. While the last Congress has taken some steps, we have not done enough. That's why I rise today to introduce legislation, the National Security Language Act, which would significantly expand our investment in foreign language education on the primary, secondary, and post- secondary level. Al Qaeda operates in over 75 countries, where hundreds of languages and dialects are spoken. However, 99 percent of American high school, college and university programs concentrate on a dozen (mostly European) languages. In fact, more college students currently study Ancient Greek (20,858) than Arabic (10,596), Korean (5,211), Persian (1,117), and Pashto (14) put together. We need to do more to make sure that America has the language professionals necessary to defend our national security. This cannot be done overnight. We are already years overdue. The 911 Congressional Joint Inquiry reports our intelligence community is at 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. Despite this alarming statistic, we do not appear to be taking the necessary aggressive action to address this problem. Various agencies are making efforts to hire more linguists. When I asked a panel of intelligence experts at a recent Intelligence hearing what the federal, government is doing to increase the pool of critical need language professionals from which they hire these linguists, they answered with silence. Two years after the events of September 11, we are still failing to address one the most fundamental security problems facing this nation. Changing our recruiting methods alone will not solve the problem. To meet new security needs, we need to create a new domestic pool of foreign language experts and we can only do that by investing in the classroom. The National Security Language Act would expand federal investment in education in foreign languages of critical need, such as Arabic, Persian, Korean, Pashto, and Chinese. Specifically, my bill would provide loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for university students who major in a critical need foreign language and then take a job either in the federal workforce or as a language teacher. It would provide new grants to American universities to establish intensive in-country language study programs and to develop programs that encourage students to pursue advanced science and technology studies in a foreign language. My bill would also establish grants for foreign language partnerships between local school districts and foreign language departments at institutions of higher education. And it would authorize a national study to identify heritage communities here in the United States with native speakers of critical foreign languages and make them targets of a federal marketing campaign encouraging students to pursue degrees in those languages. Just as the National Defense Education Act of 1958 created a generation of scientists, engineers, and Russian linguists to confront the enemy of that time, the National Security Language Act will give us a generation of Americans able to confront the new threats we face today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, since 1973, the Pell Grant program has been the backbone of making higher education affordable in the United States, with more than five million students receiving nearly 13 billion dollars in aid this year alone. Unfortunately, President Bush recently made a change to student aid policy that will cut more than $300 million in federal scholarships to low- and moderate-income college students for the 2005-06 school year. As a result, 1.3 million students will have their Pell Grant scholarships either reduced or eliminated. Current law allows students and their families to deduct state and local taxes when calculating how much income they have available to pay for the cost of higher education. This recent Bush update changes the way families calculate these deductions, and as a result, 1.3 million students will have their Pell scholarships reduced or eliminated. In essence, the change would make it appear that families have more money available to pay for tuition, decreasing the amount of Federal student aid, as well as other need-based aid for which families are eligible. This is why I am introducing legislation along with Representative Tim Bishop to reverse the $300 million Pell scholarship cut. Specifically, our bill would prevent any student from having his or her federal Pell Grant eligibility amount reduced as a result of the recent changes to student aid. This would enable the Department of Education to fine tune the eligibility calculation without hurting students and families who rely on these scholarships to pay for college. Today, education is more important than ever to solving the most pressing problems of our communities and the country. We must do everything possible to help American students attend college.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege since the terrorist attacks of September 11th to visit our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a few days ago, I also traveled to Guantanamo Bay with my colleagues, U.S. Senator Jon Corzine and U.S. Representative Robert Menendez, to investigate conditions at this key installation and visit with our soldiers on duty there, many of whom are members of the National Guard from our home state of New Jersey. Every visit I've made with our troops has added to the profound admiration and deep respect I have for the brave men and women who serve in our nation's armed forces and who are prosecuting this very difficult global war on terrorism. At the same time, we do not honor the soldiers when we fail to investigate and call to account all of those up and down the chain of U.S. military command who are directly or indirectly responsible for abusing detainees under U.S. control. This grim reality is made all the clearer in an open letter delivered today to members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from a dozen top-ranking retired military officers in the U.S. armed services. They underscore that current U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere have undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world. Last year, three reports that were compiled by U.S. Army officers and the bipartisan investigative commission appointed by U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld documented in horrifying detail the egregious human rights abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib Prison and other detention facilities under U.S. military control. Yet, the Congress failed to do our job, doggedly investigate how and why these abuses occurred, and put in place new safeguards for interrogations in U.S. military detention facilities and unfettered, independent investigations of prisoner treatment. As a result, more abuses have occurred. In recent weeks, more credible disclosures of prisoner abuses at Guantanamo and other sites where detainees are being held have come to light because of reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and the Association of the American Bar of the City of New York. It is increasingly difficult for anybody to argue that the abusive behavior came from a few aberrant soldiers. Broader systemic problems need to be probed by this new Congress. Certainly, we all must concede that the on-going stream of new disclosures continues to hurt American standing in the global community of nations and the costs of these recurring, self-inflicted wounds and related risks to the safety of our soldiers continue to mount. That is why I am today re-introducing legislation I first sponsored last July H.R. 4951 in the 108th Congress. It is designed to help prevent the kinds of abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere at DoD-controlled prisons. My bill has three main provisions. First, it would require videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent interactions between U.S. personnel and/or contractors, and detainees arrested and held in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, pursuant to the war on terrorism, as recommended by the Army Inspector General. The tapes would be kept at the appropriate level of classification. Second, it would ensure unfettered access to prisoners and detainees by representatives of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture for independent monitoring of detainee conditions and treatment. Third, it would require the Judge Advocate General, pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to develop guidelines designed to ensure that the required videotaping is sufficiently expansive to prevent abuses of the fundamental human rights of detainees and prisoners and violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and other bedrock U.S. and international laws. I am gratified that my bill has already been enthusiastically endorsed by Amnesty International Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Their self explanatory letters of support follow this statement. I am also encouraged that the U.S. Army Inspector General has expressed support for videotaping prisoner interrogations, in principle, in order to better protect the fundamental human rights of detainees and U.S. soldiers from false charges at the same time. The abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere never should have happened. They have indelibly stained the honor of our country and the overwhelming majority of U.S. troops who are defending our freedom with courage and personal responsibility. To whatever extent they continue, they aid and abet our enemies in the war on terrorism. I intend to press hard for enactment of this legislation during the 109th Congress.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, education--and higher education in particular--is more important than ever to solving the most pressing problems of our communities and the country. Let me give you some sobering statistics: According to Nellie Mae, the average undergraduate student loan debt has increased the last 5 years from $11,400 to $18,900. Today, 70 percent of federal student aid is made in loans; Grants account for only 22 percent of aid. Thirty years ago, student loans accounted for about 25 percent and grants about 70 percent of all federal student aid. Seventy-five percent of full-time students now work to help cover their college expenses. Twenty percent of working students work 35 or more hours a week while enrolled in school full-time. In 1975-76 the maximum Pell Grant award covered eighty-four percent of an average tuition at a state school; today it covers forty percent. The generation often referred to as the ``baby boom echo'' will soon enter American institutions of higher education, resulting in record enrollments that will further strain the ability of colleges and universities to deliver a quality education to their students. That is why I am introducing the Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act. It would make college tuition deductible, in conjunction with existing tax benefits for higher education. The proposal would further allow a family to deduct up to $10,000 in tuition expenses. A family would be capped at deducting a total of $15,000 in tuition expenses in one year if they have more than one child in college. In addition, if a family was ineligible for the Hope Scholarship (due to its income limitations), they would be able to deduct $5,000 of tuition costs. The bill would raise the income limits for eligibility for Hope Scholarships. Currently, the income phase-out on the HOPE tax credit is $40,000 to $50,000 for singles and $80,000 to $100,000 for couples. The proposal would raise the phase-out ranges to $50,000 to $60,000 for singles and $100,000 to $120,000 for couples, allowing more families to benefit. In order to ensure that savings go to the intended beneficiaries, the bill directs the Inspector General of the Department of Education to conduct an annual study to examine whether the federal income tax incentives to provide education assistance affect higher education tuition rates. Access to an affordable, quality education is inseparable from our economic prosperity, national security, and civic health. We must do everything possible to support this and that is why I have introduced the Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the sudden loss of Robert Matsui, and I would like to join my colleagues in honoring him today. Bob was one of the finest members to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. His strength of character, wisdom, civility, and attention to detail were inspiring to many of us serving with him. His thoughtful and helpful nature has been remembered by many today, but I will always be grateful for his desire to seek out and befriend younger and less senior Members of Congress like me. I join my colleagues in mourning the loss of a friend, a mentor, and a great leader in Congress.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce letters of endorsement for the Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment Act of 2005 (H.R. 4670). I have introduced the enabling bipartisan legislation with Mr. Houghton, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Honda, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Castle, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Frost, Mr. Berman, Mr. Ruppersberger, and Mr. Ehlers. The Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment would be a bicameral and bipartisan resource providing Congress with highly respected, impartial analysis and assessment of scientific and technical issues and would enable Congress better to oversee the Federal science and technology programs, which receives over $130 billion, annually. Finally, the Center also would help the Congress to better understand complex technical issues by providing timely information to members of Congress and our Committees before we have to make difficult voting decisions and funding tradeoffs. There is growing support for H.R. 4670 among our Nation's best science and technology professionals. I submit the following letter of endorsement by several professional societies for H.R. 4670: October 7, 2004. Hon. Rush Holt, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Amo Houghton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Holt and Houghton: The following engineering professional organizations are writing to express our support for your bipartisan bill, H.R. 4670, to establish a Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment (CSTA). America's national security and economic well-being demand that the United States remain the world's leaders in advanced technology in the 21st century. However, technological development is advancing with unprecedented speed and complexity in a truly global environment and other countries, for the first time in U.S. history, are now threatening America's scientific and technological preeminence. Members of Congress, now more than ever, need to have access to objective, timely, and sound science, engineering and technology-related assessment pertinent to legislation and the complex policy issues before them. The sheer volume and complexity of the technological data facing federal legislators necessitate some mechanism for balanced, non-partisan and technologically-informed analysis provided in a judicious manner. A Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment as envisioned in H.R. 4670 would satisfy these criteria by operating under the highly respected Government Accountability Office (GAO), being overseen by a bipartisan, bicameral Technical Assessment Board (TAB) consisting of Members of Congress and the Comptroller General of the GAO, to provide nonpartisan peer reviews of all CSTA reports. We are encouraged that this bill takes into consideration the GAO's successful technical assessment pilot program as well as the GAO study ``Technology Assessment: Providing Independent Assessments of Technologies,'' for guidance when crafting this legislation. We feel that H.R. 4670, if passed, would provide a valuable service to members of the House and Senate in making informed decisions on the complex technological issues of the times. We look forward to working with you and your staff in advancing this important legislation. Respectfully Submitted, American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Federation of Materials Societies (FMS). The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-- United States of America (IEEE-USA). National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). Optical Society of America.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University, has had, and continues to have, a far-reaching influence on arms control and nuclear policy. He is without question one of the world's leading experts on nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. Frank's many contributions include path breaking work on nuclear reactor safety, energy efficiency in automobiles, support of whistle- blowers, training of a large group of young policy scientists, and his current work on the safety of stored spent power-reactor fuel. He is the founder of the journal Science and Global Security, the leading peer-reviewed journal on technical issues of arms control and international security. He is a model to many people about how a scientist should contribute to the policy process. On the occasion of the award of the George F. Kennan Peace Leadership Award, I would like to highlight Frank von Hippel's work with Soviet scientists that prepared the way for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. This is only one aspect of Frank's many contributions. During the 1980s Frank developed a working relationship with Soviet physicist Evgeny Velikhov. At the time, Velikhov was the deputy director of the I. V. Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy in Moscow, and he became the science advisor to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Through this relationship, Frank was able to launch a series of cooperative efforts between U.S. non-governmental organizations and the Soviet Academy of Sciences. These included the installation of devices to detect underground nuclear weapons tests, an arms control experiment to verify the presence of a nuclear weapon on Soviet warship, inspections of Soviet nuclear facilities, programs to safeguard and reduce Soviet stockpiles of nuclear weapons materials, programs to reduce the nuclear proliferation risk from former Soviet nuclear materials stockpiles and from former weapons scientists, and a joint U.S.-Soviet project to assess the potential for deep cuts in nuclear weapons arsenals. These activities provided a basis for U.S. and Soviet reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Frank always knows his subject; his work is well reasoned and backed up with careful analysis. But his achievements show that he is much more than a technical expert. Frank is a great person to work with; everyone likes him. His generosity and, especially, his even temper, that have helped him forge international cooperation among scientists and governments. Frank is the first person I call when I have questions on nuclear weapons and arms control or any number of other subjects. He richly deserves this great honor.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the conference report on H.R. 4818, the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Though there are many important and laudable provisions contained in this spending bill, I am troubled by other specific provisions and by the process that this bill has followed. I am pleased that the bill provides an increase in funding for national security and counterintelligence operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unfortunately, this Congress has failed in its effort to pass comprehensive intelligence reform legislation, which would ensure that this money is being spent appropriately and that the efforts of our agencies are coordinated. I am pleased to see that this conference report provides $1.3 billion for Education Impact Aid, $24 million more than last year. This program provides funding for military impacted schools such as those in the towns of Eatontown and Tinton Falls. I am also pleased that the bill includes $250 million for the community college initiative, which will fund workforce development partnerships between community colleges and employers. Despite these provisions, we have more work to do to fully fund what should be a top priority for this Congress--education. One day after we passed the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, we underfunded aid to schools by $1.7 billion. Considering the rising cost of higher education, I am disappointed that the bill does not increase the maximum Pell Grant Award. We cannot keep the maximum Pell grant award at $4,050 and expect families to be able to afford college. I am deeply troubled that this bill includes such a restrictive limitation on funding for a woman's constitutionally protected right of choice. Specifically, this bill prohibits use of funds to pay for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. It also protects health care providers who refuse to provide this needed service. Such measures are designed to limit women's rights, and have no business in this bill. I am disappointed that the Community Oriented Policing Service, COPS, program has been cut by $142 million. Many of the towns in my district have received funding for police officers through this program, which has made our communities safer. It simply makes no sense to be taking cops off the street at a time when they are more needed than ever. I am also troubled that this spending bill cuts the budget for the National Science Foundation, NSF, by $62 million from last year's inadequate appropriation. The work of the NSF provides the basic scientific underpinnings for the most advanced technological research and development in the world. We cannot hope to remain the world's most scientifically advanced nation if we continue to shortchange our researchers. I am disturbed by the economic situation in which we find ourselves. Congress was forced to increase its debt limit by $800 billion--and that is on top of debt increases of $450 billion in 2002 and another $984 billion in 2003. The increase in the debt ceiling in just the past 3 years is almost 2.5 times the entire Federal debt accumulated between 1776 and 1980. We are in this situation because of the choices of the President and the Republican majority. They chose to prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy, rather than adequately maintaining balanced budgets and protecting the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. They chose to engage in a costly, dangerous, and unnecessary war in Iraq, which has sapped our ability to combat al Qaeda and fund important domestic priorities. They chose to bundle funds for 13 Government departments rather than engaging in a robust debate justifying the policies and priorities that we are asking the American people to pay for. Perhaps most disturbing about this appropriations bill is the process that it has followed. The infamous provision allowing unprecedented authority for Members of Congress and staff to access the private tax returns of individuals and businesses demonstrates that our budget process is broken. This provision was slipped into a 3,000 page bill which Members had no time to read before voting. The process has become corrupted by the Republican majority, which has evidently decided that enacting pet projects and controversial items that cannot pass on their own merit, are more important than debate, compromise, and good governance. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it will allow the important work of the Federal Government to continue. However, I hope that next year's appropriations process reflects a greater commitment to funding important priorities and following a fair and thorough legislative process.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it was religious freedom that brought the Pilgrims to America's shores. In our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights, we affirm our steadfast commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of the press as pillars of our democracy. Consequently, it pains and embarrasses me, as an American that the executive branch of our government continues to betray our democratic values and preclude Ms. Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and other distinguished Muslims from publishing their views for all Americans to read. Ms. Shirin Ebadi is the first Iranian and the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. She is a distinguished lawyer, scholar, and teacher. President Bush has praised her tireless work as a champion of democracy and human rights. She represents Reformed Islam, and argues for an interpretation of Islamic law which promotes international respect for universal human rights. She is devoted to religious freedom, even to the extent of risking her own life, for example, to defend the rights of other faiths inside Iran. In short, she personifies precisely the type of Islamic voice of faith and scholarship with whom our nation should be in dialogue. Why then is our government, through self-defeating U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, imposing a gag order on Ms. Ebadi? Why are Americans who attempt to help Ms. Ebadi publish her writings now being threatened with severe fines and lengthy prison sentences? The current over-reaching Treasury Department regulations are demonstrably short-sighted, counterproductive, and unrepresentative of American ideals. That is why I have written to President Bush urging him to reverse to reverse this policy and demonstrate anew America's commitment to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the free flow of ideas. I ask unanimous consent that my self-explanatory letter be reprinted in its entirety at the conclusion of my statement. The intent of the regulations, I presume, is to prevent giving beneficial trade revenue to governments that support terrorism, but preventing the publication of ideas is a clumsy, foolish way to try to protect Americans. Ms. Ebadi's views are the antithesis of those of Osama bin Laden. She is in the same tradition as Solzhenitzen, Sakharov, Sharansky, Walesa, and Havel--all of whom risked their lives to condemn Soviet repression, thus helping give hope to their oppressed countrymen and women and end the Cold War. America should extend Ms. Ebadi and others like her the same support. That would be in keeping with the democratic values and ideals of the American people that have been championed by Democratic and Republican Presidents alike since from the founding of our republic until recent years. Instead, unbeknownst to many Americans, the Bush Administration continues to enforce unreasonable regulations that silence Ms. Ebadi's voice in America just as effectively as if the Iranian mullahs imprisoned and silenced her, as they have on numerous occasions in the past. Congress of the United States, November 24, 2004. Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, The White House, Washington,

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. I must admit that when I arrived this morning, I was dubious that this measure would actually make it to the floor. That it did is due to the incredibly hard work of the conferees and the staff from both the House and the Senate, as well as the tireless advocacy efforts of the families of 9/11, and I thank each one of them for their service to America. There are many laudable provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, including most of the principal recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I'm very pleased that the conferees were apparently able to agree that the proposed Director of National Intelligence will have meaningful budget and personnel authorities to help reshape our intelligence community to meet existing and emerging threats. I'm also pleased that another key 9/11 Commission recommendation, the creation of a National Counter Terrorism Center, will also come pass. Also of note in this bill is its requirement that our intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security agencies achieve a greater level of information sharing, and that this process will include Federal, State, local and tribal entities, as well as the private sector. If there is one lesson that both the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attacks on America on 9/11 should have driven home is that information sharing among the elements of our government is paramount if we are to prevent surprise attacks. I hope these new provisions will be effective in breaking down the barriers to information sharing that figured so prominently in both of these national tragedies. I'm also gratified that this bill includes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to help safeguard the freedoms that make our nation the greatest on earth. This Board will conduct oversight of executive branch policies to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens are protected, and I hope that it will serve as an effective watchdog in that role. Make no mistake about it: The next Mohammad Atta will not present himself for biometric or other screening at an existing border crossing point. Future al Qaeda operatives will almost certainly attempt to slip across the border at a weak or undefended point, carrying with them the false identity documents necessary to blend in and execute another attack against our citizens. We must do whatever is necessary to guard our borders, and I want to thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, for all of his hard work in this area, and to wish him well in his future endeavors. There are some things in this bill that trouble me, Mr. Speaker. I'm concerned about the sweeping FISA authorities that are added in this bill, particularly those aimed at alleged ``lone wolf'' terrorists and the apparently sweeping definition of what ``providing material support'' to terrorists that is permitted in this bill. I realize that each of these clauses has sunset provisions, but as we've seen with the Patriot Act, such sweeping authorities can be used against innocent citizens. I will monitor the implementation of these provisions very closely, as I hope all of my colleagues will, and if evidence of abuse surfaces, I hope they will join me in modifying these provisions as necessary. Mr. Speaker, one key 9/11 Commission recommendation that did not make its way into this bill is the need to reform congressional oversight of the intelligence community. The bill before us also includes new provisions for expanded ``red teaming'' within the intelligence community, and I hope that this provision will sharpen analytical products coming out of the intelligence community. But we need to face facts, Mr. Speaker: Our own house is not in order when it comes to conducting effective oversight of the intelligence community. I intend to revisit this issue in the coming Congress, and I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort. Despite the concerns I've raised above, Mr. Speaker, this is a good compromise that will help to protect our country in the years ahead. I'm also confident that this compromise addresses the concerns that some in this body and elsewhere have raised that this reorganization of the intelligence community would somehow endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by constraining their access to real-time intelligence. This bill was held up for weeks by Members who claimed it would deny good intelligence to our soldiers in the field. Clearly, this compromise bill does not do that, and if anything, the provisions contained in this bill will only strengthen and rationalize the collection and dissemination of intelligence to both policymakers and warfighters. A bureaucratic turf fight is a better description of the disagreement, and that is no reason to hold up this bill. Again, I thank the conferees and the staff for their Herculean effort to bring us a bill we can collectively support, but above all I thank the families of 9/11. Simply put, this would not have happened without their relentless effort, and they are patriots in the truest sense of the word. I intend to vote for this measure, I urge my colleagues to do the same.