Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. If enacted, it will spur needed improvements in a critical Federal department that is clearly struggling in many areas. Earlier this year, the Department tried to put the best face on a devastating poll of Federal agencies in which DHS was ranked worst among places to work in the executive branch. Poor morale has led to significant turnover throughout the various agencies that comprise DHS, and inequitable pay scales have contributed to this problem. This bill corrects one of those inequities: the bill strips the Department of the authority to develop a personnel system different from the traditional GS schedule Federal model. Workers who perform largely the same tasks at DHS that are performed at other agencies should not be paid less for doing the same work. This is a basic issue of fairness, and I'm glad the bill addresses this issue. I'm also pleased that the bill requires pay parity for Customs and Border Protection employees. Our CBP officers often have some of the most dangerous and thankless jobs in the Federal Government. The fact that in the past they have not been compensated at the same rate as other Federal law enforcement officers is an injustice that this bill remedies. Recruiting and retaining CBP officers who are skilled at managing the complex and sometimes dangerous task of protecting our borders must be a national priority. This provision reaffirms that fact. This bill also seeks to strengthen and formalize the Department's roles and relationships with State and local fusion centers. If there is one complaint I think every member of Congress receives from their local first responders, it's that information they receive from DHS is either late in getting to them, irrelevant to their needs, or both. I have spoken to DHS's Chief Intelligence Officer, Charlie Allen, about this ongoing problem. He knows there is much more that needs to be done to improve the information sharing process. What is unclear to me is whether the Department's senior leadership recognizes the problem. What DHS needs--but still lacks--is a common intelligence database that is accessible to State and local law enforcement officials who are cleared to receive such information. Posting more DHS personnel to State and local fusion centers will improve the security of localities in States only if the information being provided through such liaison officers is timely and relevant. Finally, I am concerned that DHS continues to flounder in its efforts to prioritize its science and technology needs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act. Small businesses are a big part of the U.S. economy. In fact, small businesses employ more than half of all private sector employees and pay 45 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. New jobs come disproportionately from small businesses, which generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs in the past 10 years. Although federal government contracting practices are required by law to be supportive of small businesses, the bundling of contracts has prevented many small businesses from being able to compete fairly. This is a significant loss to small businesses, as federal contracts pay a total of $400 billion annually to contractors. H.R. 1873 gives small businesses a fair chance at competing for these contracts by preventing the contract bundling that has excluded them from being considered. In doing this, the Act also insures that taxpayer money is spent more efficiently, as more competition for government contracts will necessarily result in better use of public funds. The Act further improves small business contracting practices by creating a system by which small businesses and opportunities for small businesses can be better catalogued and tracked. If a business has grown and should no longer be considered small, we will know, and well give priority to true small businesses. If a large business has not subcontracted enough to small businesses, we will know, and we will assist small businesses in finding these subcontracting opportunities. When small businesses can compete fairly and are made aware of the opportunities provided them, jobs are created, entrepreneurship thrives, and the overall economy prospers. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, H.R. 1592. This legislation seeks to address the pernicious effects that hate crimes have on our society. Bigotry, bias, and ignorance have existed since the dawn of time. Yet, in a country founded on the principles of freedom, equality and liberty for all, we must do all we can to stop individuals from committing crimes based solely on prejudice. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were 7,163 hate crimes committed in 2005 and we can be sure that number is low for crimes that are underreported. Hate crimes are very real. And each hate crime spreads fear and violence among an entire community. It's long past time for Congress to pass this important legislation to help prosecute those who would commit these heinous acts. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the laws we pass may not change the heart; but they can restrain the heartless. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I believe it is the fundamental role of government to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is necessary and proper for the federal government to work in conjunction with local law enforcement officials to robustly prosecute crimes motivated by bigotry. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands our Nation's existing hate crimes laws to ensure that certain violent crimes committed against an individual because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability are prosecuted. As this bill states, bias and bigotry related crime ``savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected'' for the crime, Additionally, this legislation expands the hate crime statute by dropping the requirement that the victim had been engaged in six specifically defined federally protected activities, such as voting. H.R. 1592 also creates a grant program for the federal government to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. State and local law enforcement prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes. However, investigating and prosecuting these acts takes more time and resources than many local and state agencies may possess. Thus, H.R. 1592 authorizes the federal government to provide tools and resources that are needed by local law enforcement. This legislation is supported by the National Sheriffs Association, National District Attorneys Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Consortium of Developmental Disabilities Councils, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, National Victim Center, United States Conference of Mayors, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, American Association on Mental Retardation, and more than 200 other law enforcement, religious, civil rights, and civic organizations. By making our Nation's hate crimes statutes more comprehensive, we will take a needed step in favor of tolerance and against prejudice and hate-based crime in all its forms. This legislation sends a strong message that hate-based crime cannot be tolerated and will be vigorously prosecuted.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act, H.R. 1868. This important legislation is part of an ambitious initiative that will fulfill the Innovation Agenda. I am proud of my efforts to help craft the Innovation Agenda, which will help provide for future prosperity through wise investments. H.R. 1868 is an integral part of this effort and will help meet the Agenda's call to double funding over the next 10 years for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. NIST exists to improve our Nation's economic security and quality of life through the improvement of technology and related sciences and standards. This legislation puts us well on the path to doubling our investment in NIST by setting the appropriate authorization levels through 2010. This will mean actual authorizations of $470.9 million in FY 2008 and $537.6 million in FY 2010. These increases are necessary investments in revitalizing NIST's staffing, activity, and physical infrastructure, particularly at a time when we face unprecedented levels of international competition. In this bill, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) is created. TIP gives businesses and universities grants that encourage high-risk investments in technology, in cases where such investments have potential widespread economic benefits. This is a sound use of taxpayer money, as projected economic payoff to society is a necessary precondition for issuance of a grant. This program helps to solve the failure of market forces to encourage full investment in research and development. This failure of market forces is rooted in the fact that only one third of the financial reward of research and development investment is felt by investors, with the rest being felt by society as a whole. H.R. 1868 also improves the competitiveness of the American manufacturing industry by creating postdoctoral fellowships for related research, and by creating a manufacturing research pilot grants program for interdisciplinary collaborations between businesses, State governments, nonprofits, and universities. By strengthening our existing investment in our national technology and manufacturing capacity and through the creation of new related programs, this bill is a crucial element of the Innovation Agenda to maintain American economic security and global leadership. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007. H.R. 1332 is part of an ambitious legislative portfolio that will fulfill the Innovation Agenda. I was proud to help craft the Innovation Agenda, on which our Nation is dependent for its future prosperity. Small businesses are a big part of the U.S. economy. In fact, small businesses employ more than half of all private sector employees and pay 45 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. New jobs come disproportionately from small businesses, which generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs in the past 10 years. Small businesses face big challenges. Too often they must depend on costly lending alternatives, including credit cards. Personal credit cards are the primary funding source for U.S. entrepreneurs. Borrowing fees and high interest rates weigh heavily on small businesses. As presented in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, our Nation faces unprecedented challenges to its international competitiveness and quality of life. Small businesses are catalysts for technological innovation, and the entrepreneurship of small American startups occasionally has revolutionized our economy and lives. The viability of American small businesses is inextricably linked to the future prosperity of all our citizens. This Act makes American entrepreneurship more viable. It improves the existing 7(a) (business start-up loan) program and the existing 504 (certified development company economic development loan) program to better serve veterans, rural areas, and areas lacking sufficient medical expertise. It improves eligibility requirements for designation as a certified development company (CDC), revises procedures around the foreclosure and liquidation of defaulted small business loans, and authorizes loans for projects that reduce energy consumption by at least 10 percent. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. This can help us gain and retain a lead in economic prosperity and quality of life.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, 4 years ago, President Bush used soldiers and sailors as stage props to declare ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.'' Those combat operations indeed, should have ended, in fact, they should never have begun. This combat was constitutionally and strategically unjustifiable, operationally poorly executed with regard to armoring and deploying the troops, and politically and diplomatically disastrous. This war is not making anyone safer or more free and it cannot be won militarily. As retired General Odom said, ``The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place.'' The President continues to squander American influence, blood and treasure. The President's intransigence is why our Congress was forced to pass a spending bill that forces a change in course in Iraq. The President needs to know that the days of congressional blank checks in support of a failed policy are over.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report because it recognizes the reality on the ground in Iraq. It's past time for the President to recognize that reality and to change course in Iraq. As events in Iraq have shown repeatedly over the last 4 years, we are fighting an insurgency that retains the support of the Iraqi people. Every previous troop increase the President has implemented has failed to achieve its stated end: to reduce the violence and buy time for Iraq's government to work out a political solution to end the insurgency. So far, the President's latest troop surge has produced the same result: The insurgents have adapted, our casualties are rising, and Iraq's leaders are no closer to a political settlement that will end the fighting than they were before the ``surge'' began. This week, the Government Accountability Office provided fresh evidence that events in Iraq are spiraling out of control. GAO Comptroller General David Walker testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on April 23 that ``Despite U.S. and Iraqi efforts to shift a greater share of the country's defense on Iraqi forces, the security situation continues to deteriorate.'' Mr. Walker further noted that ``in November 2006, the State Department reported that corruption and infiltration by militias and others loyal to parties other than the Iraqi government have resulted in the Iraqi security forces being part of the problem in many areas instead of the solution.'' So despite multiple changes in our approach to training Iraq's security forces over the past 4 years, they remain just as sectarianly fragmented, undermanned and infiltrated by insurgents as when we began the process in 2003. Additionally, Iraq's civilian government shows no signs of reforming itself. Indeed, as Mr. Walker noted in his testimony, ``Some Iraqi ministries, including the Ministries of Interior, Agriculture, Health, Transportation, and Tourism, are led by ministers whose allegiance is to political parties hostile to U.S. goals. These ministers use their positions to pursue partisan agendas that conflict with the goal of building a government that represents all ethnic groups.'' The Iraqi population continues to support the insurgents. Iraq's security forces remain ineffective, corrupt, and infiltrated by insurgents. Iraq's sectarian civil war rages. Key Iraqi Government ministers are actively working against stated American aims in Iraq. And the President of the United States wants this Congress to write him a blank check to continue funding this failed policy. Fortunately, the conference report before us rejects the President's failed approach and holds him and the Iraqi Government accountable for events on the ground in this civil war-ravaged country. Passing this bill will send a clear message to Iraq's leaders that the patience of the American people has limits. Passing this bill is the best way to pressure Iraq's leaders to do what is necessary to end their civil war, because this Congress will not leave American troops in the crossfire between Iraq's sectarian factions year after year. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GINA). As a cosponsor of this important legislation since I first came to Congress, I am delighted that it is finally being considered by the House of Representatives. As humans, we have a genetic destiny that we cannot control. The genes we are born with are the genes we will die with, and it is wrong for any employer to fire, refuse to hire, or deny insurance to an employee based on that individual's genetic composition. It is unconscionable for employers to require their employees to submit to a genetic test or to secretly obtain genetic information, only to use the genetic information against the employees. The Human Genome Project was created to provide a genetic map of the human body to aid the scientific and medical communities in their fight against some of the most insidious diseases and afflictions suffered by humanity. It is a great irony and a tragedy that this research is now being used as justification to fire or refuse to hire employees who have no control over their genetic destinies. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I participated in hearings on GINA which highlighted the existing loopholes in federal and state laws protecting an individual's health information. Lacking a strong and clear national law prohibiting genetic discrimination, employees have been fired or denied insurance coverage based on this most personal of information. Today, the House will act to end genetic discrimination in hiring and firing decisions. GINA will protect prospective and current employees from discrimination based on a genetic predisposition regardless of what state they live in. It will provide strong protections to those individuals who may suffer from actual genetic discrimination now and in the future. This legislation would pose a nominal cost to employers, but provide priceless protections for American workers and peace of mind for their families. New Jersey, along with 32 other states, already prohibits genetic discrimination in decisions on hiring, firing, or benefits. However, only 25 states prohibit employers from requiring genetic information from their employees. Worse yet, only 10 states prohibit employers from obtaining genetic information or genetic tests of employees through any means. This vital legislation is supported by more than 200 groups and associations including: the Hereditary Disease Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Jewish Congress, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Society of Human Genetics, the March of Dimes, the NAACP, the National Fragile X Foundation, the National Hemophilia Foundation, the National Council of La Raza, Citizens for Quality Sickle Cell Care, the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, the Cornelia de Lange Syndrome Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, The National Workrights Institute, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, Rett Syndrome Research Foundation, the Spina Bifida Association of America and many others. Madam Speaker, it is long past time for the Genetic Non- Discrimination Act to become law. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation, which will protect the rights of American workers and their families.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act. Taking its name from the fifth chapter of the National Academies Report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' H.R. 362 is part of an ambitious legislative portfolio that will fulfill the Innovation Agenda. I was proud to help craft the Innovation Agenda, on which our nation is dependent for its future prosperity. In middle school, 68 percent of math students have a teacher who did not major in and has not certification in mathematics. Across all sciences, 57 percent of middle school students have teachers without a major or certification in the subject. In physical sciences, 93 percent have teachers without a major or certification. In high school, approximately 31 percent of math students, 45 percent of life science students, 61 percent of chemistry students, and 67 percent of physics students have teachers with no major or certification in the field. The National Science Foundation's successful Noyce program recruits and trains math and science teachers, drawing from high-performing college students and from existing math and science professionals. The Noyce program also encourages those it trains and supports to serve in high-needs school districts. H.R. 362 expands the Noyce program and modifies it to include freshmen and sophomores. Another successful math and science education program at the National Science Foundation is its Mathematics and Science Education Partnerships program, which provides grants to universities and nonprofits for the improvement of K-12 education. H.R. 362 improves the program by focusing grantees on teacher training, requiring grantees to offer masters programs for in-service teachers, and preparing teachers to instruct Advanced Placement courses. H.R. 362 does not stop with the improvement of these existing programs. It recognizes the special need for quality hands-on science teaching by authorizing funds for the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development program. The Act also requires the Director of NSF to convene a panel of experts to develop nationally available K-12 math and science teaching materials, and it creates centers that will work on curriculum, pedagogy, and the training of professors and teaching assistants to increase undergraduate participation and performance in science, technology, engineering, and math courses. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act. Taking its name from the sixth chapter of the National Academies Report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' H.R. 363 is part of an ambitious legislative portfolio that is part of the Innovation Agenda. I was proud to help craft the Innovation Agenda, on which our nation is dependent for its future prosperity. Fifty thousand people hold postdoctoral appointments in the United States. In 1999, postdocs were 43% of the first authors in articles in the prestigious journal Science. Postdoctoral appointments are temporary by design and are compensated poorly. Postdocs are generally motivated by the idea of becoming professors, a goal to which three quarters of postdocs aspire. However, only 20 percent will attain faculty positions. This had led to an increasingly dramatic and problematic holding pattern which could select more for flexibility and perseverance than for talent and performance. As science funding has become tighter, it's become more difficult for postdocs to find permanent academic positions and to remain in science. The availability of positions is entirely dependent on the likelihood of a new professor finding funding. As of 2002, the median age at which one receives a first NIH grant as a primary investigator is 42. In 1981, the median age was 35. In the biological sciences, in 1980, researchers under 40 years old received more than half of all competitive research grants. By 2003, this had fallen to less than 17 percent. At NSF, the funding rates for first-time grant recipients fell from 25 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2004. H.R. 363 addresses this problem by setting aside funds specifically for early career researchers, which are defined as assistant professors or the equivalent thereof. Assistant professor is the role to which most postdocs aspire as their next step. It is one step short of having a tenured, permanent position in a research institution. H.R 363 also requires DOE and NIST to report on how they are doing with recruitment and retention of early career engineers and scientists. H.R. 363 supports the early career part of the science and technology professional pipeline in other ways, as well. The act requires NSF to set aside at least 1.5 percent of funds appropriated for research and related activities to the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program and permits the NSF to research the process of innovation and the teaching of inventiveness. At present, the United States research infrastructure is deficient. In 2001, more than 60 percent of the Department of Energy Office of Science lab space was over 30 years old. This requires $2 billion to correct. In 1998, the NSF estimated that $11.4 billion were needed to renovate U.S. academic research facilities. In 2001, the NIH estimated $5.6 billion in health research infrastructure needs. This problem is in part caused by a 26 percent cap on reimbursement to universities from research grants for infrastructure costs. Since this cap was created in 1991, universities have been unable to find sufficient sources of funding to keep their scientific facilities competitive or, in some cases, adequate. At the same time, they are using these facilities to attempt to compete internationally for scientists. H.R. 363 addresses this problem by instructing the Office of Science and Technology Policy to create a National Coordination Office for Research Infrastructure. This office would prioritize deficiencies in research facilities at universities and national labs and then work to coordinate a response to these deficiencies. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. Without its reforms to our research infrastructure and science talent pipeline we will continue to deteriorate.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Fran Amir, a constituent from Plainsboro, to honor her on the occasion of her tenth anniversary as Principal of the Religious School at The Jewish Center of Princeton. Ms. Amir grew up in New York City and has been in the field of education and youth programming most of her life. A graduate of Brooklyn College, Ms. Amir taught social studies in the New York school system for many years. Ms. Amir did graduate work at Wayne State Univrsity in Jewish Studies, and has taught in Hebrew Schools in New York, West Bloomfield, Michigan, Toronto, and The Jewish Center of Princeton. She has directed teen programs both in summer camps and during the school year, and has served as the Youth and Family Programs Co-chair at the Jewish Center for five years. Ms. Amir's students receive far more than just the basics of Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah preparation in her religious school curriculum. When becoming Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah, a young person is expected to assume the moral and ethical responsibilities of an adult, in particular, service to the community, or ``mitzvot.'' Ms. Amir provides the best possible role model of one who performs mitzvot. Along with her service to the local Jewish community, for example, she traveled with a group of her tenth graders to Biloxi to help with clean-up of the local synagogue, Beth Israel, after Hurricane Katrina. The students carefully removed and wrapped memorial plaques from the wall, ensuring their safe storage until a new temple could be built. Not only did the students help in a practical way, but also helped maintain the Jewish tradition of reverence for the synagogue and its trappings. The highest responsibility in the Jewish faith is to learn and teach the Torah. Through religious classes, youth programs, and by example, Ms. Amir exemplifies someone who celebrates her faith and tradition through her daily life. She shares her passion with her family and friends, and touches the lives of countless students, their families, and the congregation. I am proud to recognize Fran Amir for all that she has given to the community on the occasion of her tenth anniversary as Principal of the Religious School of The Jewish Center of Princeton.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, there are no words to describe the sorrow and the pain that we feel about the catastrophe that unfolded at Virginia Tech on Monday, April 16th. The most deadly shooting in our nation's history, it is indeed a tragedy of monumental proportions. Among the 33 deaths in the attack at Virginia Tech were several New Jerseyans: Matt La Porte of Dumont; Michael Pohle from Raritan Township; and Julia Pryde, a biological systems engineering graduate student from Middletown and a resident of the 12th Congressional District. Two other Virginia Tech students killed in the attack--Mary Read and Caitlin Hammaren--had ties to New Jersey, and another--Sean McQuade of Mullica Hill--remains in critical condition. Schools, colleges, and universities should be a safe refuge for students and faculty. They are environments that are open to new ideas, encourage learning in all aspects of academics and life, and help young adults to discover themselves and prepare for a career. Like students at colleges all over the country, the students at Virginia Tech are ambitious, intelligent, and community-oriented young people. They chose Virginia Tech, I presume, because of its high academic quality and because of the safe, pleasant community where the university is located. I cannot begin to understand the pain and confusion that students must feel about the tragic events that have gripped the quaint town of Blacksburg. I can only begin to understand the panic and terror that parents, family members, and friends must have felt wondering about the safety of their loved ones. In times of tragedy like these, it is important for a community to come together to help each other come to terms with the calamity that has occurred. I hope and pray that the friends and family members of the victims, the students and faculty at Virginia Tech, and others find solace and comfort as we deal together with this historic and heartbreaking episode. This tragedy should lead other schools to review and develop their own plans for security, emergency response, and communication. Also, Congress and the entire country should reflect on what appears to be a culture of ever-increasing violence, on the psychology and methods of perpetrators of violence, and on the easy availability of guns. If there is a federal role in dealing with these matters, and I think there is, Congress should act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Rutgers women's basketball team for making all New Jerseyans proud through their athletic and academic achievements, as well as through the intelligence, dignity, and class that they showed in response to hateful, racist, and sexist remarks made about and against them. As one of two Members of Congress who represents Rutgers University here in Congress, I would like to pay tribute to them. The Scarlet Knights had a remarkable season, winning 27 games on their way to the national championship game. The Big East Champions played hard and displayed all the attributes of a championship team-- hustle, dedication, skill, and teamwork. But what distinguished this team most, in my opinion, is not what happened during the season, but after it. It is unfortunate that the end of this amazing season was marked not by a celebration of their achievements on the basketball court and in the classroom, but by ignorant, racist, and sexist remarks by a radio personality. The players and coaches were understandably hurt and angry, and their reaction to these hateful words shows why all New Jerseyans deserve to be proud. The players and Coach Vivian Stringer reacted with restraint, eloquence, and dignity. They engaged with the person who had insulted them. They told their personal views of why his words were so hurtful and inappropriate, and they accepted his apology. I hope that this incident will lead to a broader dialogue about race relations in this country. I look forward to working with community and religious leaders, elected officials, and others in New Jersey to foster an atmosphere where such comments are not only condemned, but do not happen in the first place. We hold up college athletics not for the entertainment of alumni and fans, but because we believe athletic participation builds character. These women of the Rutgers basketball team showed that they have character.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the women's basketball team of Rutgers University had a great season going to the finals. And as one of two Members of Congress who represents Rutgers University here in Congress, I would like to pay tribute to them, not just for their athletic ability. After the season was over, they were the subject of hateful, crude and insulting comments; and they responded with restraint, with eloquence and dignity. They were classy. These athletes and Coach Stringer distinguished themselves after the season even more than they did during their extraordinary season. And they serve as a reminder of what college athletics is all about, or should be. We hold up college athletics not for the entertainment of alumni and fans, but because we believe athletic participation builds character. These women of the Rutgers basketball team showed that they have character.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 71 which commemorates the 85th anniversary of the founding of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution to pay tribute to AHEPA, which is a leading association for the 1.3 million American citizens of Greek ancestry. AHEPA was founded on June 26, 1922. Since that day, AHEPA remained true to its mission to promote Hellenism, education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence. AHEPA, has helped its members gain a richer understanding of Hellenic heritage and awareness of its contributions to democratic principles in the United States and across the globe. AHEPA members have served in our Nation's Armed Forces, helped raise funds for United States War Bonds during World War II, helped in the restoration of the Statue of Liberty, and performed many other acts to help foster American patriotism. As a member of the Hellenic Caucus, I rise to honor the AHEPA and all American citizens of Greek ancestry for their ongoing contributions to our country. When establishing our democratic Nation, our founding fathers drew a great deal from the ancient Greeks. Our democratic system, that is founded on the principals of popular representation, was introduced by the ancient Athenians who were the first to create a civilization based on the rule of the people. Our founding fathers continued the Greek tradition of debating how best to govern and pursued a government that would provide liberty and justice for all. Our dual experiments in democratic government will forever link the United States and Greece. Not only can we trace the origins of our democratic government to Greece, but also the foundation of science. As some of the first philosophers, the Greeks explored the fields of mathematics, logic, astronomy, physics and biology. The Greeks focused on thinking and understanding, rather than the practical use of their findings in science. Through Aristotle's concepts we built the foundations for the modern scientific method. Our basic understanding of the Earth and its place in the solar system came from the studies of Ancient Greeks.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the first International Geophysical Year was held from July 1957 to December 1958, and this year marks its 50th anniversary. The International Geophysical Year was modeled after the successful International Polar Year of 1882 and its 50th anniversary in 1932. The International Geophysical Year allowed over 60,000 scientists from 67 countries around the world to take part in a series of coordinated observations of various geophysical phenomena. I remember the International Geophysical Year well because, as a youngster, it was reading about it that sparked my interest in science and set me toward the career in physics which I pursued before coming to Congress. The scientific activities spanned the globe from the North to the South Poles. For example, the research in the Antarctic yielded new estimates of the Earth's total ice content--a number of importance given today's melting of major glaciers due to global warming. In addition, radiation detectors to record cosmic rays, spectroscopes to analyze the aurorae, and balloons were put to use to explore the upper reaches of the atmosphere and the formation of thunderstorms. Finally, post-World War II developments in rocketry made possible the exploration of space, employing the exciting new technology of artificial satellites. Today, almost 50 years after Sputnik was launched, it is crucial that we reflect on how we responded to scientific challenges in the Geophysical Year and how we proceeded to invest in research and education in subsequent years. Today, we are falling behind other nations in many measurable ways, particularly in math and science education. Unlike 50 years ago with the launch of Sputnik, we are unlikely to have a sharp wake-up call before we find ourselves unable to maintain the leadership role and quality of life to which we are accustomed. Investment in education and research, as prescribed by, for example, the Democratic Innovation Agenda, would be a good idea in any year. It is particularly apparent that we should make these investments as we reflect today on the path we followed when Sputnik was a recent stimulus and the findings of the International Geophysical Year were so inspiring.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mary Pat Robertson from Princeton. Ms. Robertson is celebrating her twentieth anniversary as Director of the American Repertory Ballet's Princeton Ballet School. Under her leadership the Princeton Ballet School has evolved into one of the most acclaimed in the country, supporting over 1200 students annually at three locations. Ms. Robertson leads a faculty of forty supremely accomplished professionals, and works with them to mentor young dancers and to pass along techniques and artistry of classical ballet. Audree Estey founded the Princeton Ballet School on the belief that dance is an empowering activity that will benefit students all their lives. Throughout the past twenty years, Ms. Robertson has built upon this premise and has expanded students' self-esteem, self-discipline, and fitness. Mary Pat Robertson is also a choreographer. She has choreographed 25 years of work for her modern dance company, Teamwork Dance, along with many operas for the Opera Festival of New Jersey. For this work she received a Choreographic Fellowship from the New Jersey State Council of Arts, and has been honored by the Arts Council of Princeton as one of Princeton's most esteemed artists. The arts are a vital contribution to a child's development and learning. Through dance, children have an opportunity not only to learn, but to participate in the culture of their community. These children whom Ms. Robertson has taught the arts will continue to thrive in society. After 20 years as Director, Ms. Robertson still finds inspiration and satisfaction in a classroom of eager young dancers. I am proud to recognize Ms. Robertson on the occasion of her twentieth anniversary with the Princeton Ballet School.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates our values and priorities. I believe this budget by Chairman John Spratt repesents values I can be proud of. This budget funds education, healthcare, housing and development while brinnging the budget back to surplus by 2012. At a time when more than 10 percent of students drop out of high school before graduating and only 4 out of 10 children eligible for Head Start are able to participate, the budget reverses the administration's policy of under-investing in education for our children. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the Department of Education by $1.5 billion below the 2007 enacted level and to eliminate 44 different programs, and provides for substantial new investments to increase funding for vital programs such as Head Start, special education--IDEA, Title I and other programs under the No Child Left Behind Act. The bill also provides for funding the increase in Pell Grants so that high school students know that if they work hard, they can go to college. The budget rejects the President's proposal to cut funding for the Community Development Block Grant by $1.1 billion below last year's level, and instead provides for the first CDBG increase since 2005. The cut advocated by the President would endanger job creation, economic development, and affordable housing efforts cutting CDBGs for nearly 1,200 State and local governments. This budget rejects the President's proposal to cut the Child Care Development Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant by a total of $520 million below the 2007 level. The President's budget would lead to a decline in children receiving assistance so their parents can work. Our budget would allow for the first increase in child care funding since 2002. Further, knowing that we now have more uninsured Americans than 6 years ago, this budget blocks the President's proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. These cuts would have made healthcare less affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. Additionally, this budget ensures that up to $50 billion over the next 5 years will be devoted to the State Children's Health Insurance Program--SCHIP--to help cover millions of uninsured children. New Jersey is a national leader in covering children through the SCHIP program and this additional funding is desperately needed to ensure our States' good work can continue. This budget rejects the President's dangerous cuts to our Nation's first responders. What sense would it make to cut the Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program, firefighter assistance grants, Byrne Justice Assistance grants, or the Community Oriented Policing Services--COPS--program? Our budget stands up for first responders and ensures that each of the programs receives appropriate levels of funding. Mr. Chairman, I commend Mr. Spratt for demonstrating that we can provide for our Nation's defense in a responsible way--both fiscally and from a policy standpoint. This budget will provide $507 billion in base DOD budget authority, an $18 billion increase over the President's request. This budget also emphasizes the right priorities for meeting our security needs. For example, this resolution opposes TRICARE fee increases and calls for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The budget resolution notes the upcoming recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors and other Government investigations in connection with the substandard care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and allows funds for action when those recommendations are received. To help protect our Nation from a terrorist-sponsored nuclear attack, non-proliferation programs, such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, are given greater priority and higher funding. Mr. Chairman, this budget will also help us keep our promises to our Nation's veterans. I'm pleased the committee has recommended raising increased discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, from $36.5 billion to $43.1 billion--a $6.6 billion, 18.1 percent, increase over fiscal year 2007, and a $3.5 billion increase, 8.9 percent, over the administration request for fiscal year 2008. This budget provides a far more realistic spending plan than the President's proposal. Our proposed increase in this area will help meet some critical needs, including ensuring that medical inflation does not erode VA's ability to deliver quality health care to our veterans. In order to maintain American competitiveness, we must make substantial investments in scientific research and education. The budget provides funding for initiatives to educate new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in the next 4 years, and places more highly-qualified teachers in math and science K-12 classrooms. It makes critical investments in basic research, putting us on the path to doubling funding for the National Science Foundation, and bolstering investments in research and development throughout the budget. The reestablishment of the Office of Technology Assessment is made possible by Function 800, as is explicitly stated in the report language. The Office of Technology Assessment, an important tool for Congress's roles in fiscal planning, disaster mitigation, and oversight. America's dependence on oil endangers our environment, our national security, and our economy. A sustained investment in research and development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on America's vast renewable natural resources. The budget provides increased funding for basic and applied energy research, to help America achieve energy independence in 10 years. For the first time in 6 years, the budget resolution reflects a real commitment to protecting our most valuable natural resources by providing needed funding for our National Parks, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the national wildlife refuge system. H. Con. Res. 99 provides a total of $31.4 billion for environmental programs, which is $2.6 billion more than the President's request. I have been an advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund since I came to Congress 8 years ago and I am pleased that we are finally at a place where the budget includes adequate funding for both the State-side grant program and the Federal program. LWCF and the Forest Legacy program have done tremendous work in States across the country, including New Jersey, to protect open space, restore wetlands, and conserve forest lands. Why President Bush continues to turn a blind eye to our growing environmental needs is beyond me. Finally, we have a budget that realizes how important this investment is. This budget achieves this without an increase in taxes. The budget would accommodate immediate relief for the tens of millions of middle income households who would otherwise be subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) while supporting the efforts of the Committee on Ways and Means to achieve permanent, revenue-neutral AMT reform. Unless the AMT is reformed, 19 million additional families will have to pay higher taxes in 2007. The budget would also accommodate extension of other middle-income tax relief, consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go principle. These tax cuts include: the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent bracket, and the deduction for State and local sales taxes. The past 6 years of fiscal irresponsibility have caused America's national debt to increase 50 percent, to nearly $9 trillion, or $29,000 for every American. Our ability to invest in the Nation's shared priorities is constrained by the cost of the debt run up over the last 6 years, when the administration and its partners in previous Congresses turned the largest surplus in American history into a record debt. About 75 percent of America's new debt has been borrowed from foreign creditors such as China, making our fiscal integrity a matter of national security. Over the last 6 years, President Bush has borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. Presidents combined. Mr. Chairman, this budget restores the budget as a moral document that I can support. It funds the House Democratic innovation initiative, including commencing a doubling path for the National Science Foundation and providing significant increases for elementary and secondary math and science education. It accommodates a significant increase to expand children's health insurance to cover millions of uninsured children. It increases funding for veterans' health care and services so that returning soldiers will receive the care to which they are entitled. It accomplishes each of these goals without raising taxes on American citizens. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Spratt budget.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that we even have to consider this bill. Proper care of our military wounded should be the top priority of our military medical establishment. As we know now, it was not a sufficient priority for the Secretary of the Army and several senior Army officers. Those individuals may be gone, but the problems they allowed to take root and fester must be eliminated. This bill is a good first step in that direction. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act seeks to correct the training, personnel, and oversight deficiencies that the Walter Reed Medical Center scandal revealed earlier this year. I want to be clear: the overwhelming majority of the men and women who work at Walter Reed are first-rate medical professionals who care deeply about the troops in their care. However, we now know that for several years, Walter Reed-- and almost certainly other DoD and VA medical facilities across the country--had been strained beyond its capacity. Ill-advised decisions--including the outsourcing of administrative and maintenance personnel--clearly contributed to the appalling living conditions experienced by some soldiers at Walter Reed. I applaud the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for including a 1-year moratorium on such outsourcing pending a review of the entire practice. I have long argued that it is a myth that the private sector can invariably do a better job than the Federal government with these kinds of services. We've already seen in Iraq how corporate contracting giants like Haliburton can make hundreds of millions of dollars while providing substandard services to troops in the field. I'm grateful that my colleagues on multiple committees are looking at these issues, and I'm sure the reforms in this bill will only be the beginning of our effort to re-evaluate the use of contractors within the Federal government. This bill also mandates a review of the status of all DoD medical facilities, which is another key step in providing the oversight needed to ensure that any other hospitals or clinics with deficient care are identified and remedial measures taken immediately. I am confident that my friend from California, Mr. Filner, the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, is already taking the same steps. Indeed, another positive aspect of this bill is that it seeks to streamline and rationalize the transition process for veterans when they move from the DoD medical system to the VA for treatment and followup care. This bill requires that DoD ensure the veteran's medical and related records are transferred in a timely fashion, and that veterans get pre- separation counseling so that they understand the benefits they are entitled to and how to best interact with the VA medical system. Establishing a clear-cut mechanism for ensuring that veterans transition seamlessly from one system to another will require both a congressionally mandated structure, but perhaps even more important, continuous congressional engagement. That is why I am especially pleased that this bill mandates that members of Congress be informed any time one of their wounded military constituents enters the military medical system. Current law requires DoD to notify members of the death of military constituents. These notifications, while bearing tragic news, allow us to provide the maximum possible assistance to families who have lost a servicemember. By now ensuring that we are informed when military constituents are wounded, we will be able to work proactively with the families to ensure the needs of the wounded are met in a more timely manner, and to provide us with a roadmap for oversight actions early on. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, for the work that he and his committee colleagues have done to bring this measure before us today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. As events over the last several years have shown, we ignore rail and transit security at our peril. Since 2004, terrorist cells have conducted successful and deadly bombings on major passenger rail systems in Spain (2004), the United Kingdom (2005), and India (2006), with 450 people killed and 2,800 wounded. We know al Qaeda and like- minded groups desire to repeat such attacks here in America. We also know that our rail and transit systems need more money to help deter such threats. For example, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) estimates that since 9/11, our government has invested $7.53 in aviation security improvements per passenger boarding, but only $0.008 (less than one penny) in public transportation security improvements per passenger boarding. This security investment disparity has been allowed to persist for years, despite the fact that every weekday, more than 14 million people use public transportation, and more than 25 million passengers ride Amtrak each year. In New Jersey alone, NJ Transit--the third largest statewide transit agency--has stated that it has only 220 police officers to protect 400,000 customers per day (265,000 bus and 135,000 rail), 10,500 employees at multiple locations, 800 trains on more than 1,000 miles of track, 161 rail stations, and 49 light rail stations. Additionally, these same officers must protect and secure more than 2,000 buses that use more than 20,800 bus stops. In 2004, the APTA outlined $6 billion in needs for transit agency security-related investments. A 2002 Government Accountability Office study of just eight transit systems that had completed security assessments found that needed upgrades would cost at least $700 million. The Congress took a positive step last year when it raised rail and transit security funding from $150 million to $175 million. However, if we are to prevent the tragedies that occurred in Madrid, London, and Mumbai from being repeated in America, we must act now to ensure that our local transit providers have the resources they need to protect the millions of Americans who rely on rail service. Fortunately, Congress is now taking additional steps to address this problem. The bill before us today authorizes three separate security grant programs: one each for rail security, public transportation security, and over-the-road bus security. More than $5.8 billion would be authorized for these grants through 2011. If fully funded, these programs would help us close major security gaps in our rail and transit systems. Similar grant programs for firefighters and other first responders have helped local jurisdictions--including several in my own district--to upgrade their response capabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure the money to support these new grant programs is there from day one. Additionally, this bill mandates a range of additional measures designed to improve rail and transit security, including vulnerability assessments and regular security exercises to test the ability of rail and transit systems to spot and defeat potential threats to the traveling public. One of the chief lessons of the Hurricane Katrina debacle is that Federal, State, and local governments, along with the relevant private sector partners, must regularly test our collective response system to detect and fix problems before a real incident occurs. Regular exercises and the lessons learned from them must be implemented in a timely fashion. Creating a system that institutionalizes such a process is vital. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased we're finally beginning to address our rail and transit security needs in a systematic way, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. If the President of the United States were a rational decision maker, a bill of this kind would not be necessary in the first place. Unfortunately, the President continues to cling to the illusion that the situation in Iraq will improve if only we're willing to sacrifice still more American lives. But we cannot solve Iraq's civil war any more than we could solve Vietnam's civil war 40 years ago. By unleashing forces he does not understand and cannot control, the President has put our military forces in an impossible situation. Our troops cannot referee Iraq's sectarian conflict. The longer our forces remain in Iraq, the more they become identified with a government that is seen as increasingly repressive, and incapable--or unwilling--to take the steps necessary to resolve Iraq's internal conflict politically and peacefully. It is for all these reasons that it is past time for Congress to take steps in forcing the President to change course and withdraw our combat troops. This course correction is far slower and more difficult than I would like. I share the frustration of many of my colleagues that the President is not moving quickly enough or boldly enough to end our military involvement in Iraq. I for one do not expect the President to provide the Congress with accurate assessments of the readiness of our forces or of the Pentagon's ability to meet some key needs of the troops. Existing DoD readiness assessments already show that our forces are overworked and overstretched. My friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has included provisions in this bill that seek to limit the President's ability to deploy our ground forces to Iraq that are not truly ready and therefore less effective and more at risk. I believe zealous oversight of these provisions will be required if this bill becomes law. The President has shown he is willing to say or do anything to try to get his way when it comes to Iraq policy. He must not be allowed to politicize readiness assessments the way he has politicized intelligence assessments. One bogus criticism of this measure is that setting a date certain for withdrawal is bad policy or micromanagement by the Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been trotting this argument out frequently of late. Their position is undercut by the fact that they voted to impose time lines and benchmarks on President Clinton during our effort in the Balkans a decade ago. By the way, I am pleased that this measure contains significantly increased funding for two critical areas of veterans health care: traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We are only beginning to come to grips with the true costs of this conflict for our veterans, and we must take aggressive measures to ensure that they receive the follow up care they need to have the best possible chance of leading full, productive lives. Mr. Speaker, we should be under no illusions regarding this bill. It is only the first concrete step in our effort to redirect our nation's policy in Iraq. Some weeks ago, we passed a non-binding resolution that pointed us in a new direction with respect to the occupation and war in Iraq. That was the right thing to do, even though it was non-binding on the President. Similarly, this supplemental appropriation is beneficial, although the actual withdrawal of troops will require, I believe, additional forceful action by Congress to fulfill the provisions of this bill. It is important to move forward with this measure now and force this President to make America's combat occupation of Iraq history rather than a limitless, open-ended future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the constitutional history of the United States has been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has been to expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. With respect to the District of Columbia, the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation. It does not say that the price is the loss of the franchise. As a youngster who lived here in the District of Columbia, I was told by some that residents of D.C. were special. My colleague from Texas used the word ``distinctive'' awhile ago, that somehow we were honored to have Congress govern us even though we did not have representation. What a strange honor. It is truly paradoxical and ironic that residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the world should not themselves have the right of direct representation, 600,000 citizens, citizens without the complete basic rights of citizens. Giving D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation of Congress is long overdue. I rise today in support of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and I would like to commend my colleagues Eleanor Holmes Norton and Tom Davis for their tireless efforts to bring this important measure to the Floor for a vote. The United States Constitution, a relatively short and simple document, has utterly transformed the world in its 200 year history. It has served as a model for fledgling democracies everywhere, because of its establishment of a system under which the citizenry grant limited powers to the government and choose the individuals who will represent them in that government. The Constitutional history of the United States has been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has been to expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. As for the District of Columbia, however, the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may . . . become the seat of government of the United States.'' It does not say that the price is disenfranchisement. The importance of creating a neutral jurisdiction for the seat of the federal government under the exclusive control of Congress made sense at the time. As a youngster who lived in the District of Columbia many decades ago, I was told by some that residents of DC were special, distinctive as the gentleman, Mr. Smith, that we were honored to have Congress govern us even though Congress worked without representation from us. What a strange honor! It is truly paradoxical that the residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the world should not, themselves, have the rights to direct representation. The District of Columbia was created in 1790 and, in 1800, it had a population of just over 8,000. Today, it is home to about 600,000 citizens--citizens without the complete basic rights of citizens. If enacted, H.R. 1433 would treat the District of Columbia like a congressional district for the purposes of allowing direct representation within the House of Representatives. This measure was reported out favorably by the House Committee on the Judiciary Committee by a margin of almost two to one, and subsequently by the House Committee on Oversight and Government by a margin of 25 to four. [Giving Washington D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation in Congress is long overdue;] I fully support this measure and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the passing this week of one of the most effective environmentalists in the State of New Jersey, indeed in the country, Dr. Ted Stiles. Perhaps not the most celebrated, he should be celebrated. He preserved thousands of acres, advanced the understanding of ecology, and improved the environment for millions of people for generations to come. To some of my colleagues from the western States, thousands of acres may not sound like much, but the significance of that preservation and the difficulty of doing it in the densely populated Northeast are great. Dr. Stiles chaired and led boards of the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association, the Mercer County Open Space Preservation Board, the Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space, the Municipal Land Use Center, the New Jersey Academy of Science, and the Hutchinson Memorial Forest. He served for many years on boards, including the Crossroads of the American Revolution Association; The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey chapter; and others. He continued all of this work through his illness and up to his death. He showed creative approaches to locally based environmental decision-making, such as his creation of the Municipal Land Use Center; and he received awards from academia and regional and community organizations and the highest environmental award from the Governor of New Jersey. What distinguished Dr. Stiles especially was his unparalleled, unmatched ability to make people want to do those things that contribute to the general good. He made landowners want to offer their land to preservation organizations, and he made people want to spend their money to purchase and preserve that land. He made volunteer board members want to give of their time and effort to build communities and to improve the environment. He made grad students want to go to remote places around the world to do such things as measuring the size of fruits relative to the sizes of birds' beaks so we could better understand the relationship between communities of plants and communities of animals. He made hundreds of local citizens want to spend a day twice a year cleaning up their town. And he made a politically interested scientist want to leave a research career to run for Congress. Yes, I am that scientist. Dr. Stiles' research students continue to make contributions to research, teaching, and public policy around the country. Throughout his life, it is not an empty cliche to say, Dr. Stiles, through goodwill and good ideas and leadership, made this country a better place.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Chairman, this is not really about secret ballots or any of the other kinds of red herrings that are being dragged across here. It is about whether we want an even playing field so workers will have the opportunity to protect their rights and interests and advance the American economy. It should be obvious that an individual worker is in a position of lesser influence relative to the employer. Going back now 70 years, the labor relations laws were put together so that there would be an even playing field. Now we need some adjustment in that because there is still not an even playing field. The track record of unions is clear. Unions help lift working men and women and, in fact, the entire economy. Union members earn median wages that are higher. They have more employer-provided health insurance than nonunion members do. They have better defined benefit pension plans. Unions benefit workers and benefit society. That is what this is about.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House is considering this measure today, and I intend to vote for it. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2005, direct foreign investment in the U.S. totaled some $109 billion. By year-end 2004, the latest year for which detailed data are available, foreign firms employed 5.6 million Americans (just under 4% of the U.S. civilian labor force) and owned over 30 thousand individual business establishments. While the impact of foreign investment on our economy is generally positive, last year we saw how inadequate monitoring of the foreign investment process can produce threats to our security. It was just over a year ago that we learned from media reports that the Bush administration had quietly approved the sale of an American port operations company to Dubai Ports World (DPW), an entity owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. The deal was approved by a little-known government entity, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS for short. CFIUS was created by President Ford in 1975 via executive order in response to Congressional concerns over OPEC's investment activities in the United States. In the DPW case, we subsequently learned that at least some elements of the intelligence community had expressed concerns about the security implications of the DPW transaction. In Congress, we were concerned that CFIUS had ignored or downplayed any potential security issues surrounding the transaction. We were told that DPW is well run and efficient. That may be, but there was good reason for concern. The UAE, which owned and controlled the acquiring company in this case, had previously been identified as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components that were sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, which were sold by Pakistan's nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. In addition, the UAE was one of only 3 countries (including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE nationals (Fayez Banihamrnad and Marwan al-Shehhi), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had previously claimed the money used for the attacks was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system. Furthermore, after the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Commerce complained of a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries as the U.S. was trying to track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts. The Bush administration initially denied there were any such security concerns surrounding the DPW deal, so I worked to get a portion of the United States Coast Guard intelligence estimate declassified so the public would know the truth. The Coast Guard finally provided me with the declassified executive summary on May 25, 2006, and I want to make sure my colleagues and the public are aware of what this assessment says. While the USCG assessment stated that the DPW deal posed no ``immediate'' threat to the United States, it also stated that the deal ``could also provide a potential vector for Dubai-based terrorists to enter the United States, exploiting the port facilities in the same way that other terrorists have exploited individual shipping companies.'' I note for the record that I spent three months pressing Coast Guard officials to declassify this single page. Congress should not have to haggle with the executive branch to get intelligence assessments on potential security threats to our people in a manner that protects intelligence sources and methods. The bill before us contains changes in the law governing CFIUS that should help prevent a repeat of the Dubai Ports World fiasco, particularly with regards to intelligence assessments and Congressional notification. Specifically, the bill before us requires a mandatory 45-day investigation for all acquisitions involving foreign governments, to include a requirement that the Director of National Intelligence play a direct role in evaluating the national security implications of such acquisitions. The bill also requires automatic notification of Congress within five days after the conclusion of each investigation. Finally, the bill requires the Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries of the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security to personally approve such transactions. These are common sense reforms of the CFIUS process that are long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.