Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 2 years now since the world saw the infamous photographs showing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. To date, mostly junior enlisted personnel have been tried and prosecuted for various offenses related to detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. These individuals did not commit these acts in a vacuum; senior leaders allowed this abuse--and in several cases, deaths--to occur on their watch. That's not simply my opinion. It's the judgment of men like retired Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, a former senior Navy Judge Advocate General officer who has said ``One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy.'' Admiral Hutson and other senior former officers offered those kinds of comments, and their endorsement, for a report issued earlier this year by Human Rights First entitled Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly encourage my colleagues to take the time to read at least the executive summary of this meticulously documented 82-page report. You can find this report on the web at: http://www.humanrightsfirstinfo/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic- rep-web.pdf I would also recommend that my colleagues familiarize themselves with Human Rights First 2004 report, Getting to Ground Truth, which formed the foundation of their work on the detainee abuse issue. That report can be found on the Human Rights First website at: http:// www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/detainees/ Getting_to_Ground_Truth_0908.04.pdf Let me take a moment to share with you some of the key findings from Command's Responsibility, which I am also including for the Record. The report documents 98 detainee deaths in U.S. custody. Of those 98 deaths, 45 are suspected or confirmed homicides. Thirty-four deaths were classified as homicides under the U.S. military's own definition. Human Rights First found 11 additional cases where the facts suggest that deaths were the result of physical abuse or the harsh conditions of detention. In 48 cases--close to half of all the cases--the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. At least 8 detainees, and possibly as many as 12, were tortured to death. To date, only 12 deaths have resulted in any kind of punishment, and the highest punishment for a torture-related death has been 5 months confinement. Most tellingly, no civilian official or officer above the rank of colonel responsible for interrogation and detention policies or practices has been charged in connection with any death of a detainee in U.S. custody, including the deaths of detainees by torture or abuse. As retired Army Brigadier General David Irvine noted in the Human Rights First report, ``What is unquestionably broken is the fundamental principle of command accountability, and that starts at the very top. The Army exists not just to win America's wars, but to defend America's values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.'' I whole-heartedly agree, which is why last June I joined over 170 of my colleagues in cosponsoring HR 3003, which would establish an independent Commission on the Investigation of Detainee Abuses to conduct a full, complete, independent, and impartial investigation of the abuses of detainees in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or any operation within the wider war against Al Qaeda. The Commission would be charged with determining: (1) the extent of the abuses; (2) why the abuses occurred; and (3) who is responsible, and to provide recommendations for corrective action. This Commission is necessary because the work of uncovering all of the facts in these cases has yet to be done. This Commission must also help Congress determine why no flag-rank officers have been held accountable for the deaths and abuse that occurred on their watch. If we are to avoid future cases of abuse and rebuild our reputation as a nation that lives by the rule of law, we must air the full facts about how aggressive interrogation techniques resulted in serious injury or death for dozens of detainees in our custody. Mr. Speaker, the detainee abuse scandal has done grievous harm to our moral standing in the world, and given our terrorist enemies a powerful recruiting tool. We cannot allow it to happen again. I urge the House leadership to bring H.R. 3003 to floor for an immediate vote. Congress has allowed too much time to pass already; we need answers, and we need to hold senior civilian and military leaders accountable for this sorry episode. Finally, I commend Human Rights First for their unflagging commitment to preserving and protecting human rights, for the high quality of their work on these issues, and for holding our Government and its representatives accountable in the court of public opinion on this critically important issue. [From Command's Responsibility] I. Introduction ``Do I believe that [abuse] may have hurt us in winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world? Yes, and I do regret that. But one of the ways we address that is to show the world that we don't just talk about Geneva, we enforce Geneva. . . . [T]hat's why you have these military court- martials; that's why you have these administrative penalties imposed upon those responsible because we want to find out what happened so it doesn't happen again. And if someone has done something wrong, they're going to be held accountable.''--U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Confirmation Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 6, 2005. ``Basically [an August 30, 2003 memo] said that as far as they [senior commanders] knew there were no ROE [Rules of Engagement] for interrogations. They were still struggling with the definition for a detainee. It also said that commanders were tired of us taking casualties and they [told interrogators they] wanted the gloves to come off. . . . Other than a memo saying that they were to be considered `unprivileged combatants' we received no guidance from them [on the status of detainees].''-- Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, Testifying during his Court Martial for Death of Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, January 19, 2006. Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global ``war on terror.'' According to the U.S. military's own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death. Despite these numbers, four years since the first known death in U.S. custody, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. Of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half. While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, not one CIA agent has faced a criminal charge. Crucially, among the worst cases in this list--those of detainees tortured to death--only half have resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death: five months in jail. It is difficult to assess the systemic adequacy of punishment when so few have been punished, and when the deliberations of juries and commanders are largely unknown. Nonetheless, two patterns clearly emerge: (1) because of investigative and evidentiary failures, accountability for wrongdoing has been limited at best, and almost non-existent for command; and (2) commanders have played a key role in undermining chances for full accountability. In dozens of cases documented here, grossly inadequate reporting, investigation, and follow-through have left no one at all responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths. Commanders have failed both to provide troops clear guidance, and to take crimes seriously by insisting on vigorous investigations. And command responsibility itself--the law that requires commanders to be held liable for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which they knew or should have known--has been all but forgotten. The failure to deal adequately with these cases has opened a serious accountability gap for the U.S. military and intelligence community, and has produced a credibility gap for the United States--between policies the leadership says it respects on paper, and behavior it actually allows in practice. As long as the accountability gap exists, there will be little incentive for military command to correct bad behavior, or for civilian leadership to adopt policies that follow the law. As long as that gap exists, the problem of torture and abuse will remain. This report examines how cases of deaths in custody have been handled. It is about how and why this ``accountability gap'' between U.S. policy and practice has come to exist. And it is about why ensuring that officials up and down the chain of command bear responsibility for detainee mistreatment should be a top priority for the United States. The Cases to Date The cases behind these numbers have names and faces. This report describes more than 20 cases in detail, to illustrate both the failures in investigation and in accountability. Among the cases is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal when photographs depicting prison guards giving the thumbs-up over his body were released; to date, no U.S. military or intelligence official has been punished criminally in connection with Jamadi's death. The cases also include that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death. In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush's death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church. And they include cases like that of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, in which investigative failures have made accountability impossible. Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed while in U.S. custody at a holding camp close to Nasiriyah. Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death--Hatab's body--was rendered unusable in court. Hatab's internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering Baghdad heat, the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner's findings of strangulation was never found. Although policing crimes in wartime is always challenging, government investigations into deaths in custody since 2002 have been unacceptable. The cases discussed in this report include incidents where deaths went unreported, witnesses were never interviewed, evidence was lost or mishandled, and record-keeping was scattershot. They also include investigations that were cut short as a result of decisions by commanders--who are given the authority to decide whether and to what extent to pursue an investigation--to rely on incomplete inquiries, or to discharge a suspect before an investigation can be completed. Given the extent of the non- reporting, under-reporting, and lax record keeping to date, it is likely that the statistics reported here, if anything, under-count the number of deaths. Among our key findings: Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations; Investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution; Record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining chances for effective investigation or appropriate prosecution; Overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have compromised chances for accountability; Overbroad classification of information and other investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces essentially immune from accountability; Agencies have failed to disclose critical information, including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to half the cases examined; Effective punishment has been too little and too late. Closing the Accountability Gap The military has taken some steps toward correcting the failings identified here. Under public pressure following the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs in 2004, the Army reopened over a dozen investigations into deaths in custody and conducted multiple investigation reviews; many of these identified serious flaws. The Defense Department also ``clarified'' some existing rules, reminding commanders that they were required to report ``immediately'' the death of a detainee to service criminal investigators, and barring release of a body without written authorization from the relevant investigation agency or the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. It also made the performance of an autopsy the norm, with exceptions made only by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. And the Defense Department says that it is now providing pre-deployment training on the Geneva Conventions and rules of engagement to all new units to be stationed in Iraq and responsible for guarding and processing detainees. But these reforms are only first steps. They have not addressed systemic flaws in the investigation of detainee deaths, or in the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for wrongdoing. Most important, they have not addressed the role of those leaders who have emerged as a pivotal part of the problem--military and civilian command. Commanders are the only line between troops in the field who need clear, usable rules, and policy-makers who have provided broad instructions since 2002 that have been at worst unlawful and at best unclear. Under today's military justice system, commanders also have broad discretion to insist that investigations into wrongdoing be pursued, and that charges, when appropriate, be brought. And commanders have a historic, legal, and ethical duty to take responsibility for the acts of their subordinates. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized since World War II, commanders are responsible for the acts of their subordinates if they knew or should have known unlawful activity was underway, and yet did nothing to correct or stop it. That doctrine of command responsibility has yet to be invoked in a single prosecution arising out of the ``war on terror.'' Closing this accountability gap will require, at a minimum, a zero-tolerance approach to commanders who fail to take steps to provide clear guidance, and who allow unlawful conduct to persist on their watch. Zero tolerance includes at least this: First, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should move immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005. Full implementation requires that the President clarify his commitment to abide by the ban (which was called into question by the President's statement signing the bill into law). It also requires the President to instruct all relevant military and intelligence agencies involved in detention and interrogation operations to review and revise internal rules and legal guidance to make sure they are in line with the statutory mandate. Second, the President, the U.S. military, and relevant intelligence agencies should take immediate steps to make clear that all acts of torture and abuse are taken seriously--not from the moment a crime becomes public, but from the moment the United States sends troops and agents into the field. The President should issue regular reminders to command that abuse will not be tolerated, and commanders should regularly give troops the same, serious message. Relevant agencies should welcome independent oversight--by Congress and the American people--by establishing a centralized, up-to-date, and publicly available collection of information about the status of investigations and prosecutions in torture and abuse cases (including trial transcripts, documents, and evidence presented), and all incidents of abuse. And the Defense and Justice Departments should move forward promptly with long-pending actions against those involved in cases of wrongful detainee death or abuse. Third, the U.S. military should make good on the obligation of command responsibility by developing, in consultation with congressional, military justice, human rights, and other advisors, a public plan for holding all those who engage in wrongdoing accountable. Such a plan might include the implementation of a single, high-level convening authority across the service branches for allegations of detainee torture and abuse. Such a convening authority would review and make decisions about whom to hold responsible; bring uniformity, certainty, and more independent oversight to the process of discipline and punishment; and make punishing commanders themselves more likely. Finally, Congress should at long last establish an independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the ``war on terror.'' Such a commission could investigate and identify the systemic causes of failures that lead to torture, abuse, and wrongful death, and chart a detailed and specific path going forward to make sure those mistakes never happen again. The proposal for a commission has been endorsed by a wide range of distinguished Americans from Republican and Democratic members of Congress to former presidents to leaders in the U.S. military. We urge Congress to act without further delay. This report underscores what a growing number of Americans have come to understand. As a distinguished group of retired generals and admirals put it in a September 2004 letter to the President: ``Understanding what has gone wrong and what can be done to avoid systemic failure in the future is essential not only to ensure that those who may be responsible are held accountable for any wrongdoing, but also to ensure that the effectiveness of the U.S. military and intelligence operations is not compromised by an atmosphere of permissiveness, ambiguity, or cofusion. This is fundamentally a command responsibility.'' It is the responsibility of American leadership.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleague from Massachusetts as well as my colleague from Delaware, who is the cochair of the House Passenger Rail Caucus, in shifting this funding into the rail, freight and transit security grant program. I understand what the appropriators have gone through. Maybe everyone in this House could rewrite the bill in some way. But it clearly merits attention when we are spending 70 times as much for air security as for rail security. As the 9/11 Commission said, it appears that we are fighting the last war. Of course, we watched in horror as airplanes were used as explosive missiles. But we have thousands of people traveling by rail. We have important freight routes. We have thousands of miles of track, just in New Jersey, 800 trains, 1,000 miles of track, 161 rail stations patrolled by a couple hundred uniformed officers. The money in this program that we propose to increase can be used for explosive-agent sensors, for security cameras, for interoperable communications. That was driven home to us just today when travelers in the northeast corridor coming out of New York traveling through New Jersey were shut down for hours. And as they were shut down because of a power failure, they discovered they had difficulty communicating with each other. The various trains had trouble communicating with each other. We clearly need to address the security in all of these areas. The GAO reported in 2002 that in just eight transit agencies, there was a need for security improvements that totaled well over $700 million, far more than we have spent in the intervening years. Mr. Chairman, you have heard from my friend from Massachusetts that this is not a maybe; there is unfortunately a long tally of security breaches, of terrorist attacks around the world. And this funding will go a long way toward preparing the rail systems throughout the United States against such terrorist attacks.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we are considering today. The Energy and Water bill funds our Nation's Department of Energy programs, water and science programs and some defense and agriculture related programs. Unfortunately, instead of making a commitment to a rational energy policy this bill continues our dependence on fossil fuels; continues our practice of poisoning our lands, oceans, and air; and does little to combat rising gas prices. While H.R. 5427 does increase funding for alternative energy research and development, we must do more. I was pleased to learn that energy supply and conservation programs are funded at $2 billion, 5 percent more than the President's request and 12 percent more than the current level. Important initiatives that will receive additional funding are renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; including biomass fuels, hydrogen technologies and solar power. Appropriations bills are a chance for Congress to fund programs that we believe fit our Nation's goals and protect the best interests of the American people. In this bill, we must show our commitment to important programs that promote sustainable energy sources, energy efficiency, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We can and should do better than what we are considering today. That is why I supported the Visclosky amendment which would have invested $750 million in alternative energy, innovation, and energy efficiency by increasing funding for the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research and Development and various other technologies such as clean coal and geothermal research and development. Tomorrow we will consider a bill once again that will allow drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wonder when my colleagues will learn that drilling our way to energy independence is unrealistic and simply flawed logic. We must focus on developing sustainable energy sources and encouraging conservation. This is the only way to actually work our way to energy independence. I urge my colleagues to make a commitment to alternative energy sources. Ernest Hemingway wrote, ``The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.'' We must continue to fight to preserve our environment and develop energy sources that are clean, safe and sustainable.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill that will increase funding for organic transitions. It should come as no surprise; in fact, we have talked about it already this morning, that the demand for natural pesticide-free and chemical-free foods has been increasing dramatically in the United States. In fact, the Department of Agriculture says this part, this sector of the industry, is growing at 20 percent per year. And yet funding for a critical government program to help farmers make the transition to organic farming has remained quite small and flat year after year. The Organic Transitions Program is a competitive grants program established as part of the Cooperative Research and Extension Service. The national program has been very important to organic farming, to organic farmers and farms, and to fund research to assist the farmers in overcoming the barriers and making the transition into organic production. This will help farmers, and it does today, help farmers optimize management of organic matter, soil fertility, research in pests and in crop health. Farmers have been funded to implement pest management programs for use in blueberry production. Another study has been funded to look at organic weed suppression. Organic agriculture, indeed, is coming of age. But still, there is a need for research under the Department of Agriculture to help in the transition. Despite the surge in demand for organic products, the research into the transition, the research to assist the farmers in making the transition into organic farming methods has been holding steady at just under $2 million for the last several fiscal years. Well, spread over 50 States for agricultural research and extension services, obviously that is not keeping up. So today I am offering with my colleagues from Iowa, Oregon and Wisconsin, Mr. Leach, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Kind, an amendment to increase the funding of the organic transitions program from $1.8 million to $5 million. I am very much aware of the hard work that the chairman and the committee have put into squeezing every dollar out of their bill to get the best effect. However, I must say I was startled to find that the funding for this important program was not increased a bit even though this sector of agriculture in the United States is growing at 20 percent a year, and the demand for this very program is growing very rapidly. So this amendment has the enthusiastic support of the National Organic Coalition, the Organic Trade Association, the northeast and other chapters of the Organic Farming Association, and many in the farming community. And without this additional organic research funding, the farming community simply will not be able to keep pace with the ever-growing demand for pesticide-free and chemical-free organic agricultural products. I hope my colleagues will join me in favor of this amendment. I ask for its approval.

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

Mr. HOLT. The gentleman from Wisconsin, I am sure, is fully aware of the fact that the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research and Extension Service has been one of the things that has made agriculture in America great and has made it successful. What we are talking about is a highly competitive grant program under that service. This is not any give-away. This is something that advances the understanding and advances the agricultural science. The chairman makes it sounds like we are talking about a whooping amount of money, $5 million. We are talking about agricultural services all over the country; every State is involved in organic agriculture now. This is an important increase, but this is not a whooping, prohibitive increase.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5385). This is an improvement, albeit a small one, over the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In total, the Committee provided an additional $635 illion above the President's budget. Everyone on my side ofthe aisle-- and all of the veteran service organizations--viewed that figure as inadequate. Several of my colleagues--including Mr. Edwards, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Obey--did their best to get the committee to fund adequately hospital construction, personnel hiring, and health care delivery initiatives that are vital to meeting our veterans needs. Instead, the committee voted to give still more tax cuts to millionaires. Whom do we value more--those who make millions, or those whose valor made it possible for the millionaires to flourish in peace and freedom in the first place? On January 17, 2003, the Bush Administration stopped enrolling new Priority 8 veterans for VA medical care, and the President's budget continues this restrictive policy. This Republican policy has denied health care to 273,000 and prevented 1 million veterans, who make as little as $26,902, from enrolling in VA health care. Those who are eligible are often forced to wait in line for care. As VA officials admitted to Congress in February, the VA has treated more than 144,000 returning veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and nearly 30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment--double the number last year. Nearly a third of returning veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan have been diagnosed with mental disorders, with nearly half of those PTSD, according to the VA. The number of troops back this year from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder could total 15,000 or more--five times higher than the VA predicted. And as the Kansas City Star noted on April 30, the ``miscalculation on PTSD echoes last year's underestimation by the Bush administration of how many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans would need medical treatment.'' The President and his Congressional allies don't seem to have any problem paying for the weapons of war, but they do seem to have a problem paying for the consequences of war. But the country that sends its people into combat--its sons and daughters, its husbands and wives, its sisters and brothers--has a sacred obligation to take care of those people when they come home--and to care for their survivors when they do not. It is an obligation that goes back to Abraham Lincoln in 1865. It is an obligation we have never fully met--under administrations and Congresses of both parties. This budget, while better than what the President submitted, does not truly meet that obligtion. Any member of this body who has committed this country to a war costing $400 billion can surely find it in their hearts to their budget to produce the $2 billion that the veteran's organizations say is missing in this bill. Yet this bill fails to provide $6 billion from what current veterans need over the next 5 years for their health care. I hope that next year we will pass a budget that veterans feel meets their needs, rather than one they view as ``the best they could get.'' Finally, there is a VA clinic in my district leasing space at Fort Monmouth which is scheduled to close under the 2005 BRAC recommendations. Secretary Nicholson has pledged to me in writing that this clinic will stay open through 2010 at its present location and working to maintain its location in Monmouth County beyond that. While the Pentagon must take into account the care and well-being of the veterans served by the base when following BRAC procedures, the VA must have sufficient resources meet the veteran's needs. In this case, it means having the resources to acquire a much needed facility after the Army leaves town. At present those resources are not there. I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure that the veterans of my district will continue to receive the same high quality care they currently have.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Department of Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Today we are considering a bill that funds the majority of our Nation's environmental programs. However, the funding levels that this bill allows are inadequate to meet the needs of our country. By passing this bill today we are turning our back on programs that conserve our public lands, protect our wildlife, and protect our environment. I am disappointed with a variety of programs that are losing funding in this appropriations bill but I want to talk specifically about the cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund LWCF. As many of my colleagues know, for the last 40 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund program has helped State and local government preserve open space and develop recreational facilities. By providing Federal matching grants, LWCF has helped create a national legacy of public parks and outdoor leisure areas. This bill would provide for LWCF a mere $60.3 million in funding, the lowest in more than 30 years. This funding level is more than $80 million below last year's funding level. LWCF's State and local matching grant program that helps States acquire open space and recreational land has been completely eliminated in this bill. My good friend and colleague, Representative Jim McGovern, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I have worked together to try to restore ``State side'' funding for LWCF. I was pleased that over 150 of my colleagues joined a letter that Representative McGovern, Representative Peter King and I sent to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to restore state side LWCF funding. Mr. McGovern, Mr. King and I all represent densely populated States that are combating overdevelopment, and programs like the matching grant program help our local communities establish the recreational and open space areas that are so vitally important to our children's health, appreciation for the environment and community development. In the past 40 years, roughly 40,000 grants to States and local governments have been funded through the LWCF State side program. According to the National Park Service ``Today, there is clear evidence that the grant program has been successful in encouraging States to take greater responsibility for the protection and development of recreation resources at every level.'' Now is not the time to cut funding for conservation programs that help our local communities. Protecting open space is not an abstract environmental matter--it is a quality of life issue. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying bill and demand real attention to our Nation's environmental needs.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment to provide much needed funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As a scientist, I am often advocating for investments in math, science, and technology research, development, and education. These are worthwhile expenditures that contribute to innovation and economic growth, but our nation requires a parallel investment in the arts to retain the cultural and creative growth that ties our diverse society together. This modest increase in funding will build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America. The additional funds provided through this amendment would support the very successful Challenge America program, which brings the arts to rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods whose limited resources don't always allow for community arts programs. In 2005, the Challenge America program provided grants to towns and cities in 99 percent of Congressional districts for jazz and blues festivals, showcases for regional musicians and artists, and public- private partnerships that bring the arts into local schools. Dozens of studies have demonstrated the significant positive effect of arts education on students' academic performance, self esteem, and behavior, and the Challenge America grants are an excellent mechanism to bring the arts to students who can greatly benefit from that exposure. Similarly, the NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural life. The additional funding contained in this amendment would enable NEH to improve the quality of humanities education to America's school children and college students, offer lifelong learning opportunities through a range of public programs, and support new projects that encourage Americans to discover their storied and inspiring national heritage. It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly sustenance. They power economic development, even in regions that are down and out. Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country more worth defending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Carol Kientz for over 40 years of dedicated service to the field of nursing. Since receiving her B.S. in nursing from Cornell University in 1965 and her M.S. in nursing from the University of California, San Francisco in 1968, Ms. Kientz has been an active member of the healthcare community; serving in a variety of professional and community volunteer positions. She has served as a community health nurse for the New York City Health Department, a nurse educator in New York and New Jersey, supervisor for the Visiting Nurse Association, director of health services at Christ Home Hospital in Jersey City and for the past 16 years, as the Executive Director of the Home Care Association of New Jersey. Outside of her professional responsibilities, Ms. Kientz has also participated in many healthcare organizations and activities including serving as a founding board member of the New Jersey Commission on Accreditation for Home Care, participating on numerous committees within the National Association for Home Care, and serving on the editorial review board for New Jersey Medicine and the Home Health Care Management and Practice. Throughout her professional career in nursing, Ms. Kientz has received numerous recognitions and has had the distinct honor of receiving a number of public appointments. Most notably, she was named Home Health Assembly Member of the Year in 1989 and received the Home Health Assembly Martha Esposito Award in 1997. For her commitment to improving public health, Ms. Kientz was appointed and has served on the New Jersey Governor's AIDS Council from 1994 to 2002 and presently, serves on the Medical Assistance Advisory Council for the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services since 1995, Governor Corzine's New Jersey Healthcare Advisory Committee since 2002, and the Bioterrorism Advisory Committee for the Department of Health and Human Services since 2002. In her most recent position, as executive director of the Home Care Association of New Jersey, Ms. Kientz has displayed great character and commitment towards achieving her goal of ensuring that all patients receive the highest quality of care. She has been instrumental in developing and facilitating committees within the organization responsible for addressing industry issues as well as advocating on a variety of healthcare policy issues. Her efforts have included establishing the Real Coalition, which allowed the home care industry to formulate a collective and unified voice, participating in the development of the Assisted Living Regulations for the State of New Jersey, improving the process for home health aide competency testing, strengthening relationships with State agencies, advocating for government initiatives to address the nursing and workforce shortage issues affecting the home care industry, establishing the home health aide scholarship process, and establishing the Home Care Foundation of New Jersey to explore Grant opportunities to benefit the greater home care industry. Throughout her career, Ms. Kientz has genuinely demonstrated a strong commitment towards improving home healthcare. It is the enthusiasm and dedication of people like Ms. Kientz that have raised the bar of excellence in patient care. Please join me in recognizing her many accomplishments.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget resolution is no plan to bring the budget back to balance. The Republican budget includes a deficit for 2006 of $372 billion, and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. These deficits mean that, under Republican policies, the five largest deficits in history will have occurred in five consecutive years. Over the next five years (2007-2011), the budget resolution calls for deficits totaling $1.1 trillion. Since this Administration took office, it has requested and the Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget, by 2011 the statutory debt will increase by another $2.3 trillion, for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3 trillion. The President's reckless economic policies have doubled our nation's debt. Further, I am concerned by the amount of the debt that has been accumulated by foreign bank, individuals and governments. In 1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly. During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and governments. I support the Representative John Spratt's alternative budget, which would reach balance in 2012. The Spratt budget also has smaller deficits than the Republican budget, and accumulates less debt. By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance, and even refuses to show how big its deficits will be after 2011. The Spratt budget backs the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement rules that require that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue legislation be fully offset. During the 1990s, two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in turning record deficits to record surpluses. The Spratt budget also requires a separate vote to increase the debt limit, and prohibits using fast-track reconciliation procedures to make the deficit worse. The Republican budget cuts appropriations for domestic services by $9.4 billion relative to current services, and by $3.2 billion below the level passed by Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, the budget continues Medicare subsidies close to $60 billion for managed care providers of Medicare even though they are supposed to save Medicare money, not cost more. The resolution also includes $228 billion over five years for additional tax cuts, part of a $3 trillion ten-year Republican tax cut agenda. The Republican resolution cuts appropriated funding for education and related programs below current services, providing the same inadequate level as provided by the President. For 2007, that Republican level cuts funding for the Department of Education by $2.2 billion below last year's comparable level, and eliminates 42 education programs. The Spratt budget provides $4.6 billion more than the Republican budget for education appropriations, and over five years provides $45.3 billion more than the Republican resolution. The Spratt budget rejects the deep cuts proposed by the Republican budget, and preserves programs such as vocational education, Perkins loans, Safe and Drug-Free Schools state grants, and the GEAR-UP college readiness program. The Spratt budget also makes a down payment on college affordability by cutting student loan interest rates. After a temporary one year gain, the Republican budget after five years cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6.0 billion below current services. The Spratt budget includes $6.0 billion more than the Republican budget over five years for veterans' health care. The Spratt budget also rejects the increase on health care fees on military retirees who are enrolled in Tricare. The Republican budget asks additional sacrifices from those who have served and sacrificed for our country; the Spratt budget rejects the misguided Republican policies and keeps our commitment to our veterans. The Republican budget cuts funding for health by $18.1 billion below current services over five years, the same insufficient level provided by the President. The Republican level means cuts to priorities such as the Centers for Disease Control, 18 of 19 institutes at the National Institutes of Health, and rural health activities. The Spratt budget provides $18 billion more over five years to fund health priorities cut by the Republican budget, including medical research at NIH and graduate medical education for children's hospitals. The Spratt budget also takes steps to address the problems with the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, including extending the May 15 signup period through the end of year and protecting seniors from any enrollment penalties. The Spratt budget also takes steps to help the uninsured, and creates a reserve fund to increase Medicare payments to physicians, which are currently scheduled to be cut. For the environment and natural resources, this Republican budget imposes a $25.0 billion cut relative to current services over the next five years and imposes a $2.9 billion cut for next year alone. This is the same level as the President's budget, which cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service. Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget resolution actually makes the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and adds to the growing burden of the national debt. Meanwhile, the Republican budget makes harmful cuts to critical services for the American people--including education, veterans' services, health, and environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the Spratt alternative budget.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 2.9 million nurses across the country whose vital contributions to our healthcare system are rightfully honored this week during ``National Nurses Week.'' The theme of National Nurses Week (NNW) 2006 is ``Nurses: Strength, Commitment, Compassion.'' These are 3 qualities that nurses show on a daily basis in caring for patients during times of disaster and crisis, at the bedside, and through continuing education. In my own healthcare and that provided to my family and friends, I am continually impressed by the knowledge, professionalism, and kindness that nurses demonstrate in their patient care. They are literally at the front lines of our healthcare system, and their important role deserves to be recognized. That is why I am pleased to support House Resolution 245, supporting the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week. There are immediate challenges facing the profession of nursing, and there are concrete steps that Congress should take in order to ensure that patients can benefit from their care now and in the future. Most notably, we must take steps to address the growing shortage of nurses and the aging of the nursing workforce. Recruitment and retention of nurses is important, as is ensuring that schools of nursing have the faculty and resources they need to teach and train students. That is why I introduced H.R. 2184, the Nursing School Capacity Act, which would authorize an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study to identify constraints encountered by schools of nursing in admitting an adequate number of nurses for our healthcare system, and develop recommendations to alleviate the constraints. We must fully fund nurse workforce development programs through Title VIII of the Public Health Service Act. Unfortunately, as the nursing shortage has worsened, funding has remained flat. We must ensure that healthcare providers are adequately staffed with nurses, and protect nurses from mandatory overtime. We also must support the right of nurses to bargain collectively with their employer, a basic right that should be afforded to workers in all sectors of our economy. I thank all nurses for the contributions that they make to our health and to our communities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the Missile Defense Agency has before it really an impossible task. Our current missile system programs have not worked, and wishing will not help it to overcome the physics. The tests have failed repeatedly. It has been confused by decoys, faced numerous testing troubles, and despite spending over $100 billion over the years, we have failed to develop a working system. Mr. Tierney referred to the seven separate reports that are critical of various aspects of this program. Our amendment is not just pulled out of a hat, it focuses this program down to allow the Missile Defense Agency to work in those areas where it can make progress. The programs have gotten so far out in front of the basic facts that it is time to focus this down. You know, our colleagues say they do not want to shortchange our national defense, but I can assure you that cutting wasteful programs does not shortchange our national defense. Seven separate reports by independent agencies here say that aspects of this program are wasteful. They simply are not working. It is time to focus it down. You know, one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard is that we should deploy this missile defense system as a way to test it. I cannot think of any aspect of your life, any aspect of military preparedness, any aspect of business or industry where you work that way. It should be thoroughly tested before it is deployed. And to deploy something like this is worse than a waste. To deploy a flawed system, well, simple strategic analysis tells us that a provocative yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens the security of all Americans. The idea that we have sunk lots of cost is the argument that keeps coming back. That is one of the worst fallacies in human reasoning. We need to stop throwing good money after bad and focus this program down.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tax reconciliation bill. Today's tax budget reconciliation bill will give the average American family an average of $10 per year from the extension of this tax benefit, or about enough to cover 3 gallons of gas. They will receive no benefit from the extension until 2009. Despite the popular GOP rhetoric about the large percentage of Americans that benefit from the rate reduction, the average American family's share of the total tax cut is approximately 2 percent. Taxpayers with annual incomes greater than $10 million will receive approximately $500,000 in tax reductions per year. While I do believe we need to create a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax problem, today's bill just pushes off the problem by another year. I have voted numerous times in favor of AMT relief far larger than the provisions included in the conference report. The conference report has limited relief that only applies in 2006, but protects dividend and capital gains benefits through the close of 2010. We are paying for this $70 billion tax cut by deep cuts of $39 billion over 5 years in programs like Medicaid and child support enforcement. The other $31 billion will be added to the debt. Medicare funding was cut by $6.4 billion; the social security index by $732 million. In New Jersey alone three thousand mothers will be dropped from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which helps mothers care for their babies before and after birth. Four hundred children in New Jersey currently attending Head Start will be cut out of this important childhood education and development program. More than 3,200 low-income and disabled people will be cut from Section 8 housing vouchers, all in New Jersey alone. They have also made a college education more expensive. Cuts--more than $12.76 billion--to federal student financial aid were made by increasing rates that students pay, charging students more fees on their loans, and reductions in subsidies to lenders. This is the largest cut in history in student loans. The result will be nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise the cost of college loans-- through new fees and higher interest--for millions of American students and families who borrow to pay for college. For the typical student borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, these new fees and higher interest charges could cost up to $5,800. Once again, New Jersey families were hit--over 125,000 college students in New Jersey will be affected. Today's tax bill cuts $70 billion in taxes and the reconciliation bill cut $39 billion in spending, so how will the other $31 billion be made up? By adding to our national debt, putting the burden on our children and grandchildren. According to the Treasury Department, major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities total $2.18 trillion. Currently, China is the world's second-largest buyer, exceeded only by Japan. Furthermore, China's purchases of U.S. government securities have exploded by more than 211 percent since the beginning of 2001 and now total $311 billion. This situation is dangerous because it is a major way that we are funding the federal government--by selling our debt to the Chinese. In 1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly. During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and governments. The high level of foreign holdings of U.S. securities could have a debilitating impact on our economy and foreign policy. If China threatened to sell large volumes of U.S. Treasury securities, it could easily fuel higher inflation and put pressure on the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates, putting our economy at risk for a large-scale recession. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this tax reconciliation bill, because we can do better.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Miller's motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2830, the so-called Pension Security and Transparency Act. I opposed the Republican pension legislation that passed this body late last year because it will erode an employer's willingness to provide defined benefit plans and will close the loopholes that allow companies to dump their pension obligations onto taxpayers. In addition to these effects, it offers insufficient protections to loyal workers and gives special treatment to executives for their compensation and pension packages. It is this specific problem that we are addressing today. ExxonMobil's outgoing CEO, R. Lee Raymond recently secured a total retirement package valued at $400 million, including a $98 million windfall in the form of a lump sum pension payment. This is just one more example of huge executive compensation at the same time that workers are losing their retirement security and earned and needed benefits. Under the House Republican pension legislation passed last year, if an employer allows a pension plan to become less than 80 percent funded, the covered workers cannot receive benefit increases, cost of living adjustments, or lump sum pension payments. The legislation holds executives to a different, and much cushier, standard. Executives can continue to pad their own compensation packages with corporate assets until plan funding drops below 60 percent. We must establish fairness in the pension process and level the playing field so that CEOs and workers are subject to the same benefit rules. This motion would accomplish that goal, instructing conferees to apply the same benefit restrictions for workers and retirees, and CEOs. This is a vital step that we can take to restore a vital sense of fairness to the compensation and pension process. I encourage my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Mrs. Bonnie Scott Gendaszek, an eighth grade mathematics teacher at John Witherspoon Middle School in Princeton, New Jersey and Ms. Lois Elizabeth Lyons, a high school science teacher at High Technology High School in Lincroft, New Jersey. Mrs. Gendaszek and Ms. Lyons are the two New Jersey recipients of the 2005 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching program is administered by the National Science Foundation to recognize and reward outstanding mathematics and science teachers who serve as role models for their colleagues, and to encourage these talented individuals to remain in the teaching field. We must, as Members of Congress, celebrate these fine individuals. Each of us is in Congress today because we had along the journey of our education, teachers who inspired us to achieve, to inquire, to excel, and to dream. Teaching today is different than when we were in eighth grade or high school. It is not just the content of mathematics and science courses that is different. Additionally, there is more valid scientific research in the area of how students learn and how to integrate mathematics and science knowledge into their intellect, and into their lives. We know that students must be engaged in the learning process, actively involved in the lesson, not just listening to the teacher. Mrs. Gendaszek's classroom is one of questioning for deeper understanding. She has created a learning community of inquisitive middle-schoolers who seek to understand mathematics in their everyday lives. This is no small accomplishment, Mr. Speaker. To create such an environment requires daily dedication to her students. Ms. Lyons' classroom is also one of questions and exploration. She has learned how to make chemistry less intimidating to her student by connecting the concepts to her students' lives first, thus engaging their curiosity. Research into student motivation tells us that relevance is key to facilitating intrinsic motivation in students and creating life-long learners. Teachers in our Nation do not receive enough respect or recognition for the work that they do each day of the school year for our youth and for our Nation. As I work to pass the Congressional Teacher Award Act, I am happy to celebrate these mathematics and science teachers through the Presidential awards. As the United States seeks to find its place in the emerging global knowledge economy, our attention has turned to those who educate our youth, for teachers truly can change the future. I look forward to the leadership in the classroom, in New Jersey, and in the United States of Mrs. Gendaszek and Ms. Lyons to help maintain the leadership of the United States in the global economy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act, H.R. 4954. In the wake of the Dubai Ports World controversy, it is long past time to seriously address the issue of port security. The ports of the United States are an economic gateway to the rest of the globe. They are vital to our economy and to our national security. Today, seaports handle 95 percent of our nation's foreign trade valued at over $1 trillion. This is an issue that is important to my constituents and to all citizens of New Jersey. The security of Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which is the 15th busiest port in the world, is something we need to address. Yet, five years after the terrible attacks of September 11th, our nation's seaports remain remarkably vulnerable and real security concerns persist. Only 5 percent of the cargo containers that enter the United States are inspected despite the potential presence of dangerous cargo, including nuclear weapons. This national security risk is a result of the failure of the current Administration to seriously address this essential issue. This bill takes important steps necessary to help secure out nation's ports and prevent dangerous materials from entering our country. However, the bill is far from perfect. The Republican Majority wants to play word games with port security rather than provide real security to all Americans. Today they will try to convince Americans that 100 percent of all cargo containers are screened. But, it is important to notice that they are only talking about screening, meaning a review of the paper manifest of the cargo container--not a physical inspection. I support the inspection of 100 percent of all containers, and tragically we only inspect 5 percent of all cargo containers entering the United States today. That means that 95 percent of the cargo containers entering our country could contain nuclear, biological or chemical weapons but because we have not inspected them we would never know. This needs to change. Hong Kong has successfully implemented a 100 percent inspection program at its ports. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues denied Democrats the opportunity to offer an amendment that would require the United States to implement a similar program with 100 percent inspection of containers coming in to our country. Americans want real security, not word games. The 9/11 Commission recently gave the Administration and Republican- controlled Congress a ``D'' for cargo screening. Still, the Congress has only appropriated a total of $883 million for port security despite the Coast Guard's stated need of $5.4 billion over 10 years to adequately secure our seaports. Last year, I voted for the Democratic Homeland Security substitute that would have appropriated an additional $400 million for port security funding for Fiscal Year 2006, but it was rejected by the Republican Majority, who is more interested in giving tax breaks the wealthiest Americans. We can and must do better for the security of the American people. That is why I am glad that the SAFE Port Act would authorize $400 million annually for port security grant programs to be distributed based on risk. This money is desperately needed by our nation's ports to ensure that terrorist do not smuggle dangerous materials in to our country. Further, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to hire an additional 200 port-of-entry inspectors every year for the next six years. These additional employees will help ensure that high risk containers are actually inspected. The SAFE Port Act represents a bipartisan and thoughtful effort to address the important issue of port security. I am pleased that this bill authorizes approximately $5 billion over six years to improve port and cargo security programs. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to finally develop a plan to deploy radiation detection systems at all American ports. It also strengthens the Container Security Initiative. Further, it authorizes almost $2 billion for the Coast Guard to upgrade and replace its deteriorating equipment and ships. The SAFE Port Act is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. But we need more work remains to be done. We need to require 100 percent inspection of all cargo coming in to the United States. Anything less jeopardizes the security of the American people.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the students of East Brunswick High School for winning the national finals of the 2006 We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. Their unwavering commitment to mastering of our nation's most sacred document is truly laudable. The students from East Brunswick traveled a long road before claiming national victory. They developed their knowledge of a wide range of topics, from the philosophical origins of the Constitution to its modern-day interpretations. They spent long hours studying primary and secondary sources. On April 29 through May 1, they appeared on Capitol Hill before simulated Congressional committees made up of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders, who tested their knowledge of both historical and contemporary constitutional issues. As the foundation upon which our great democracy rests, the Constitution is a document that all Americans should understand, appreciate, and defend. I applaud the students from East Brunswick High School for acting on these values. They are indeed our future leaders, and have proven that they are able to defend and nurture our democracy and our Constitution. While I certainly admire their wealth of knowledge, I admire even more their passionate dedication to our American ideals. The participating students competed against more than 1,500 students from 49 other high schools. Since its founding by the Center for Civic Education in 1987, over 28 million students have participated in this program, whose goal is to educate high school students on the importance of continued civic involvement. East Brunswick High School won last year's competition, and it is a great achievement to have defended their title. I would like to congratulate each of the students of East Brunswick High School: Brian Boyarksy, David Chu, Nelson Chu, Dana Covit, Megan DeMarco, Ben DeMarzo, Craig Distal, Deborah Elson, Dana Feuchtbaum, Munira Gunja, Melinda Guo, Shelby Highstein, Evan Hoffman, Jayasree Iyer, Ryan Korn, Michael Martelo, Carol Ann Moccio, Jeffrey Myers, Ari Ne'eman, Daniel Nowicki, Aditya Panda, Sherwin Salar, Gil Shefer, Aaron Sin, Lauren Slater, Eric Smith, Merichelle Villapando, Amy Wang, and Jason Yang. Congratulations also go to their teacher, Alan Brodman, for inspiring his students to excel in their study of the Constitution. I am proud to have such fine Constitutional scholars in my district, and I am myself inspired by their dedication our nation's most sacred ideals. I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). This bill is based on a false premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity. As many of my colleagues have expressed, oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation faces with energy. Instead of investing our efforts in sustainable energy sources to meet our growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery. I recently joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey state legislators for the signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011. Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in Central New Jersey. This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a military base. This is about allowing the federal government to overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their communities. We owe it to our constituents to debate meaningful energy legislation that reaches the root of our growing energy problems, not something that tries to fix a problem that does not exist. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local communities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor and a privilege to serve in the U.S. Congress. Having been entrusted by our constituents with the responsibility to serve their interests in this body, we hold a sacred trust to represent them openly, honestly, and selflessly. Serving as a public official necessarily and rightly subjects an individual to heightened scrutiny of behavior. It is tragic that scurrilous actions perpetrated by Members of this body have further eroded the trust that Americans place in their electoral and representative system. Congress must act expeditiously and strongly to restore this trust. Unfortunately, the legislation that we have before us today is nothing more than a sham. It is a feeble attempt to fool the public--a package of half-hearted cosmetic changes that merely nibble at the edges of a fundamentally flawed governing ethos. H.R. 4975 falls far short of its two goals--fixing the systemic problems that have led to abuses of power, and restoring the faith of American citizens in the integrity of this institution. Recent scandals prove that we need to do something to ensure that Congressional travel is legitimate. Domestic and international travel is an important way to inform our representation and see the effects of our decisions in different communities and countries. For example, Members of Congress should have the opportunity to travel to Israel, Burma, Greece, Brazil, or other destinations where the votes cast in this chamber have a real impact. Such trips are entirely different from golf junkets to Scotland. Nonprofits and educational agencies should continue providing this important service because it informs Members in a setting free of special interest lobbyists. However, H.R. 4975 does nothing to stop lobbyists from funding and arranging Congressional travel. Such travel should be permanently banned altogether. H.R. 4975 also fails because it imposes no restrictions on the use of corporate jets by Members, and does not require reimbursement of the flight's actual value. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant, and H.R. 4975 does not do nearly enough to allow the public to know the interaction between elected officials and lobbyists. H.R. 4975 contains no meaningful disclosure requirements on lobbyist campaign finance activities on behalf of Members of Congress. We must let the public know about fundraisers, events ``honoring'' Members, or outright contributions that special interest lobbyists are lavishing upon elected officials. The bill has been stripped of any such requirements. It is clear that the practice of ``earmarking'' is not the ideal way to fund the needs of the nation. Basing funding decisions not on merit, but on the influence and seniority of a Member of Congress inherently does a disservice to the nation. Earmarking needs to be severely restricted. At a minimum, each Member should be willing to fully disclose the requesting organization or person and explaining the purpose of the project publicly. Unfortunately, H.R. 4975 fails to achieve this goal. Its disclosure requirements apply only to appropriations bills--not to authorization or tax bills. It's a half- measure, at best, that would do nothing to stop wasteful and unnecessary projects like the ``Bridge to Nowhere.'' Sadly, the process by which this legislation comes before us has been fundamentally undemocratic. The Rules Committee disallowed the large majority of amendments that would improve this weak bill. It disallowed an amendment that would have required registered lobbyists to disclose lobbying contacts with Members of Congress and senior executive branch officials. It disallowed an amendment to increase the waiting period for Members and senior staff to lobby Congress. And it disallowed an amendment to require full payment and disclosure of charter flights. The Democratic alternative is a better way. The Honest Leadership Open Government Act would address these shortcomings and more. It would prohibit special interest provisions from being inserted in legislation in the dead of night, before they can be adequately reviewed and debated. It would restore democracy in the House by prohibiting votes from being held open to twist arms and lobby Members on the floor, and would prohibit cronyism in key government appointments and government contracting. We would also permanently ban gifts and travel arranged or funded by lobbyists, mandate disclosure of lobbyist fundraising activities on behalf of Members, and close the revolving door between the public and private sector. The Washington Post calls this bill, ``a watered-down sham.'' USA Today calls it an ``outrageous substitute for needed reform.'' Third party interest groups like Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. P.I.R.G. have all condemned this weak and inadequate effort to kick the can down the road. We have an historic opportunity to reform the way business is conducted in Washington, D.C., and we are poised to miss that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4975 and support real reform.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Amtrak on its 35th Anniversary. Yesterday, Amtrak celebrated 35 years of committed service to America by providing reliable and safe transportation. Rail service has integrated small communities with large cities across the country providing opportunity for economic expansion, increased mobility, and environmentally sound transit. With the creation of Amtrak in 1971, our country has benefited from organized, reliable and safe service to individuals commuting to and from work and individuals using rail service for extended travel. With the rising cost of airline flights, exceptionally high gas prices and bus stations being closed across the country, individuals are relying more and more on rail service. In New Jersey, employers rely on an integrated rail operation to enable many of their employees to get to and from work. As a regular Amtrak rider, I appreciate the professionalism and service that customers enjoy every day. The continued operation of Amtrak is an essential component of easing traffic congestion, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting our environment and preserving open space in New Jersey and across the country. Amtrak needs the support of Congress. Funding cuts for Amtrak would have crippling effects on transit in New Jersey and many other states along the Northeast Corridor. In 2005, ridership reached a record level of more than 25 million riders, a 29 percent increase since 1996. We must meet the needs of millions of Amtrak riders through continued funding for this essential American service. We must help Amtrak maintain key infrastructure on the 650 route miles that Amtrak owns (out of 22,000 miles on which Amtrak operates), repair or replace old equipment, and encourage local and state investment. I have always been a strong advocate for increased Amtrak funding and greater federal support for passenger rail service in New Jersey and throughout the country. I am a cosponsor of the Amtrak Reauthorization Act, which would authorize funding through Fiscal Year 2008 for Amtrak operations and capital investment. We must show our commitment to Amtrak by reauthorizing funding instead of fighting every year to keep funding at a steady level. Again, I congratulate Amtrak for its 35 years of service to our nation. Rail service is a fundamental component of our nation's continually growing transportation system, and Amtrak has demonstrated the capacity of integrated rail service to expand economic opportunity, commuter options, and make vital contributions to the fabric of our communities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 392, which celebrates the 58th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel. Today, we remember and pay tribute to the creation of the democratic State of Israel. It took the United States only eleven minutes after Israel had been declared a state to officially welcome her into the community of nations. For the last 58 years the United States and Israel have built a unique special relationship. The creation of the State of Israel was a bold step in May of 1948. The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once said that, ``courage is a special kind of knowledge: the knowledge of how to fear what ought to be feared and how not to fear what ought not to be feared.'' It is from such courage that the State of Israel was formed and from which Israel continues to maintain its vibrant and strong democracy today. We can all learn examples from the struggles that the citizens have endured and the grief they have overcome to remain a democratic outpost in the Middle East. I am proud to join my colleagues today to reiterate our continued strong support of Israel and her right to defend herself and her people from terrorism, and to focus on the special relationship that exists between our two nations. I have had the pleasure of traveling to Israel on a number of occasions, and these visits have only reinforced my strong conviction that the United States must remain actively engaged in ensuring a peaceful and equitable agreement between the two parties to the current conflict. Yet, much work remains unfinished. We are all troubled by the recent Palestinian elections that put Hamsa in control of the Palestinian Authority and by the hateful, threatening comments that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made about Israel. This year also brought a transition from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert, and my thoughts and prayers remain with the Sharon family. This has been a unique year for Israel, full of challenges that were admirably met. As Ben-Gurion used to say, ``in Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.'' I still strongly believe in the dream that has become the wonderful reality of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution celebrating the 58 years of Israel's existence as a beacon of democracy and hope in the Middle East. I also celebrate today the daily courage exhibited by the citizens of Israel and express my personal commitment to Israel at this milestone in its history. I look forward to future anniversaries, and to the day when Israel and her citizens can live in peace without the need for courage against fear.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282. I am a cosponsor of this important legislation because I remain deeply troubled by the current regime and situation in Iran. It is long past time for the House to address the security challenge posed to the world community and our allies in the Middle East by the current regime in Iran. The hateful and threatening comments made by the President of Iran against Israel cannot be tolerated. Further, the provocative actions taken by Iran to further their nuclear weapons program must be stopped. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our allies. We must use every tool at our disposal today to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran must change its way. This important legislation would codify bilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran and strengthens third-party sanctions through amendments to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. H.R. 282 would make the removal of these sanctions contingent upon a Presidential certification that Iran no longer poses a threat to the national security of the United States, its interests, or allies. It would also require the Administration to report to Congress on countries cooperating (or not) with U.S. efforts to forge a multilateral Iran sanctions regime. The bill would also provide U.S. assistance to pro-democracy groups in Iran and to independent broadcasts into Iran from abroad. I was troubled when I read the recent reports about the Administration seriously considering a nuclear attack on Iran. While I strongly oppose Iran's efforts to create a nuclear weapons program, it would be unconscionable to use nuclear weapons in an attempt to eliminate their program. The President must reassure the world that America remains a responsible world power. He must state unambiguously that the United States will never use nuclear weapons in a first strike against Iran or any other sovereign nation. H.R. 282 is in keeping with United States priorities to address the multiple threats posed by the Iranian regime, as well as with our goal to bring peace and stability the people of the Middle East. I support this important legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to this rule. A number of amendments were denied to some very responsible Members of this body. One amendment would have required the President or the Vice President, if they intend to declassify intelligence documents, to inform the congressional Intelligence Committees and the originating agencies ahead of time. As we have learned in the last month through court filings, the President, without informing, much less consulting our committee, elected to secretly and selectively declassify portions of the 2002 national intelligence assessment about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, by sworn statement, we know that this was done to rebut critics of the administration who questioned the rationale for the war. The American people deserve to have the full facts. This amendment that I offered but we were denied the opportunity to debate on the floor would have ensured that any future classification efforts would have been disclosed. It would have exposed what the ranking member of our committee called the double standard of leaks. Another amendment that I would have offered would have required any inquiries about intelligence employees or contractors made by nonintelligence community government officials, such as the President, the Vice President, the White House staff, would be reported to the congressional Intelligence Committees together, so that the propriety of such an inquiry could be considered. Had my amendment passed, it would have given Congress the opportunity to say clearly whether outing a career intelligence officer for gratuitous reasons would be tolerated. Now, the gentleman from Florida said with regard to this bill before us, all Members will have the opportunity to review the material before us. No, not so. Even the cost of the unwarranted surveillance program will be provided only to a few Members. The gentlewoman from New Mexico said that she has been informed, but I can tell you 425 other Members of this body have not been informed even about the cost of this program. And they cannot and they will not be informed, yet they are asked to vote on what is one of the most significant changes in intelligence collection in American history. The checks and balances spelled out in this document, which I refer to my friend from Florida, known as the Constitution of these United States, this hallowed document, those checks and balances, are eroded. The debate here, allowed by the Rules Committee, or the lack of it, makes a mockery of this hallowed document. Amendments by Representatives Boswell, Reyes, Eshoo, Harman, Flake, Frank, Kucinich, Maloney, Schiff, Shays and others have been denied. We have been denied the opportunity to debate significant issues on the floor.