Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, while I support this temporary extension of the Higher Education Act, I am very disappointed that we have not passed the full Higher Education Act reauthorization and once again we are passing an extension. Higher Education is more important than ever to ensure America's economic prosperity, security, and health. Just as college has become essential to both individuals and society's success, college tuition has risen dramatically, causing students to take on high loan debt, $17,000, on average; to work long hours that interfere with academic success sometimes; or to forgo college altogether. Yet, Congress has failed to pass the Higher Education Act. Now, one party controls the White House, the Senate, and the House; the same party. Yet, they have failed to pass a Higher Education Act. Where are the priorities? Congress seems to have no trouble passing tax cuts for the wealthy, but to provide opportunities for students to attend college does not seem to be a priority. Mr. Speaker, the failure of the House to pass a higher education reauthorization is emblematic of this ineffective Congress. In past years, the Higher Education Act was one of the easiest to pass, one of the most bipartisan, a bill we could count on. And with this temporary extension, we have missed many opportunities today. We could have increased the Pell grant and provided it year- round. We could have significantly increased aid to minority-serving institutions. We could have increased assistance to low-income and first-generation college students. We could have increased loan forgiveness. We could have eliminated origination fees on student loans. We could have provided child care for parents who are attempting to go back to college. We could have changed the student aid formulas for working students. But, today, we pass a temporary extension. We have failed to do any of those things, and American college students and their parents are paying for Congress' failure.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and disappointed that this particular resolution concerning Iraq is before the House today. It is intentionally divisive, and unnecessarily so. Yesterday, the Iraqi people engaged in the most basic civic activity of a true democracy; they voted. I congratulate the millions of Iraqi citizens who bravely went to the polls to elect their parliament. I am greatly encouraged by this significant accomplishment, and I am proud to strongly support the Iraqi people as they struggle to build their own democracy. I also strongly support our troops on the ground in Iraq. I recognize and honor their service and tremendous sacrifice. I also honor the sacrifices that have been made by their family members over the past 4 years. They have served bravely and skillfully, even when they have not been given the equipment and strategic support they require. As they come home, their Government must live up to its promise and provide the long term support they will need. Every member of the House would support a resolution celebrating and honoring the Iraqi people and successful elections that occurred yesterday. Every member of the House would also support a resolution honoring the sacrifice and commitment of our service members who are serving in Iraq. The ranking minority member of the International Relations Committee introduced a resolution that would have done those things. Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to play politics with our troops and to use the historic Iraqi elections as an opportunity to try to split us apart. The resolution before us today fails on two fronts. First it fails for what it is not: Not a strategy for success, no change of course, and nothing to communicate to the American People or our troops that we recognize the facts on the ground and have learned from our past mistakes. It also fails for what it is: an empty, self-congratulatory statement that the current policy is working, without regard for the facts. There is enough good to recognize--the Iraqi elections, the service of our soldiers--that we should not be waving around our own statements of self-appreciation and manufactured on imaginary good news. Let us discuss real, solid evidence and real, substantive plans. How do we move towards a more stable, functional Iraq? It is worth discussing, for a moment, the meaning of victory. I would have hoped that the President and Majority would have learned 3 years ago that saying ``Mission Accomplished'' does not make it so. Giving wishful speeches in front of signs that says ``Victory'' does not make it so. And using the word ``victory'' in the titles of counterproductive resolutions like this brings us no closer to a stable and functional Iraq. Now that the Iraqi people have a framework for a constitution and have elected a parliament, it is time for the United States to bring our troops home. This will do more to erode support for the insurgency than a continued U.S. military occupation can ever hope to accomplish. As my colleges know, Congressman John Murtha, a respected defense expert and a decorated Marine veteran, recently introduced H.J. Res. 73, which would bring our troops home from Iraq and bring an end to an occupation that does not serve the interests of the Iraqis or America. This resolution recognizes the ground truth in Iraq and will help to end the insurgency, I am proud to support it, and not this one. Also, publicly stating that we will not seek to build permanent bases in the country would help to reassure the population of Iraq that we mean what we say when we tell them we have no designs of occupation. That is why I have cosponsored the Iraq Sovereignty Promotion Act, H.R. 3142, which calls for America to make such a public pledge. Unfortunately, today we are not discussing either of these bills, or any of the many other pieces of legislation that have been introduced by my colleagues on what to do in Iraq. Instead, we have wasted an opportunity to have a substantive debate in favor of yet another divisive hollow resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the so called Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, H.R. 4437. I am deeply concerned by this bill's enforcement-only focus and the simple fact that it fails to seriously address our Nation's true immigration problems. Our Nation's immigration system is broken. It does not work. Our legal immigration system does not meet the needs of American employers, lawful immigrants seeking residence in the U.S., and families seeking to reunite and pursue the American dream. And yet that does not need to be the case. One of the main reasons we have a huge illegal immigration problem is that our legal immigration system just does not work. We could be talking today about the widely recognized problems and debate comprehensive immigration reform. But we will not do that today. I am deeply troubled that this bill, which would drastically alter our Nation's immigration laws, was rushed to the House floor just a little more than a week after it was introduced and after only one committee hearing it was voted out on party lines. On this key issue we should be able to work together. Immigration is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is truly an American issue. The history of America is a history of immigration and immigrants. From the first Europeans to settle on our shores in places like Jamestown and Plymouth, to the millions who were greeted by the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island trying to flee hunger and poverty in the Old World in search of a new life and a new start in America, legal immigrants continue to this day to be a vital part of our social fabric and our economic growth. I firmly believe in the necessity of legal immigration. Our country was founded on the principle of immigration, and we are fortunate to have millions of hardworking, law-abiding immigrants living in this country. Studies show that, far from being a tax burden on us, immigrants add billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Statistics also reveal that immigrants are likely to set up their own businesses, which creates jobs for workers and sales opportunities for American companies. It is important to recognize the many benefits--economic and otherwise--that legal immigrants provide to our country. However, like many Americans, I am concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants into our country. I believe the best answer to this problem is to comprehensively address our Nation's legal immigration system and to also fully and effectively enforce our immigration laws on the books. But this bill focuses almost solely on new enforcement actions. It is a piecemeal attempt to solve a much larger problem and it will end up jailing foreign citizens who come illegally into the United States and make all employers in the country deputy immigration officials. These are not sensible solutions to the immigration problems that exist. I strongly believe that we need to secure both our southern and northern borders. It is also imperative to secure our seaports and airports. But we also need to acknowledge and deal with the fact that an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants hide in the shadows of our country. This bill simply ignores them and tries to fool the public into thinking that real changes are being made to secure our borders. Over the last 20 years, Congress has passed into law 17 different immigration-related pieces of legislation. But a clear problem still remains. Rather than seriously doing something about immigration, the Congress has passed politically expedient but not policy-based legislation. It is clear that the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, needs dramatic changes and the American people have continually called for such changes. The INA needs to be updated to meet the labor shortages that American employers face. It needs also to be fundamentally altered in how it handles foreign-born workers. Too often the INA is more complex and arcane than even the IRS Tax Code. This leaves businesses, citizens and prospective immigrants confused and unsure of what to do. In my central New Jersey district alone this means that I have more than one full-time employee to help the citizens and residents of my district navigate these laws and the out-of-control bureaucracy they have created. This bill is extreme and will not fix these arcane rules and procedures. And it will certainly fail to do what it promises. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain all illegal immigrants who enter the United States until they can be returned to their country of origin. Yet the bill does nothing to provide DHS with facilities or capacity to do just that. DHS will not be able to meet this flawed expectation and it will prove to be an untenable burden on an already over-extended detention system. The bill also creates a new Employment Eligibility Verification System, EEVS, based on a small previously existing pilot program. This would require all employers to check their employees' work status. This essentially deputizes employers as immigration officers and forces an undue burden on them to do the Government's work. Currently, employers are already required to check the work documents of all of their employees. The GAO has estimated that this new provision alone will push an unfunded mandate on employers of close to $12 billion a year. This simply is not a practical solution. This bill is strongly opposed by a broad range of organizations such as U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Nursery & Landscape Association, Catholic Charities USA, Associated Builders and Contractors, United Auto Workers, and even the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. This broad coalition of organizations and interest groups understands that this is not a solution to our existing immigration problem and in fact may exacerbate the problem. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to seriously and comprehensively address the important issue of immigration.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the pension reform legislation that we are considering today. I oppose this legislation because it will further erode an employer's willingness to provide defined benefit plans and will close the loopholes that allow companies to dump their pension obligations on to taxpayers. Throughout the 1990's, in American workplaces a dramatic shift from traditional defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans occurred. Rather than being able to count on a regular pension check of a specified amount each month for the rest of his or her life, many workers must now put money in a mutual fund or other investment and take what comes each month for as long as it may last. Many other companies began to ``cash out'' their pensions giving employees a cash balance payout, claiming it was equivalent to a pension. It is not equivalent to a pension. Furthermore, some companies have used the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to bail them out of their financial troubles. Now, millions of workers have entered retirement, only to learn that their company could not provide the benefits they had been promised. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation has amassed a $23 billion deficit, jeopardizing its ability to insure defined pension benefit plans. As millions of more workers face reduced benefits, it is clear that Congress must find an effective solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today will not strengthen the defined benefit program or help to ensure that millions of workers receive the benefits they have been promised and planned on for retirement. Unlike the Democratic substitute that Representative Miller and Representative Rangel tried to offer, this bill will not make it more difficult for companies to use the bankruptcy code to dump their pension obligations to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). The decision of United Airlines to force the PBGC to cover its pension obligations resulted in reduced benefits for its employees and retirees and shifted its burden to fulfill pension promises on to the American taxpayer. As a result of United Airlines action, the PBGC was forced to absorb $8 billion in guaranteed benefits, and employees and retirees lost $3 billion in their earned pension benefits. Then the directors of the reorganized company gave themselves bonuses. Northwest and Delta Airlines, as well as companies such as Delphi are also on the verge of following in the path of United Airlines. This will undoubtedly increase the PBGC deficit, and further jeopardize its ability to insure pension plans. I hope that when this bill moves to conference, the conferees will include important provisions from the Democratic substitute that will reduce a company's ability to dump their pension liabilities to the PBGC. Specifically, pension reform legislation should include measures that require companies to seek alternatives before terminating their pension plan and require companies to prove that the plan is unaffordable in a court of law. I also believe that the provisions in the bill that legalize cash balance plans will hurt millions of workers. Over 8 million workers have already been affected by cash balance conversions, before the courts put a hold on the discriminatory way companies converted to these cash balance plans. The GAO has estimated that without older worker protections over 85 percent of younger workers and 90 percent of older workers would loose expected pension benefits if a defined benefit plan were converted to a cash balance plan. Legalizing cash balance plans will hurt workers that are nearing retirement and will cause more anxiety for younger workers that must plan for retirement with uncertain benefits. Although I will oppose this bill for the aforementioned reasons, there are provisions that I believe will benefit workers. For example, this legislation will allow employers to give their employees access to professional investment advice. With the dramatic increase in hybrid plans and defined contribution plans, employees are now faced with making multiple investment decisions that will have a profound impact on their retirement security. This investment advice provision will ensure that workers will be able to make informed decisions regarding their future. American workers deserve to know that their pension is secure and that they will receive the benefits that they have been promised during their years of service. As this bill moves to conference, I hope the conferees will be able to improve the shortcomings of this legislation so that we can pass legislation that will preserve the defined benefit pension system.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak tonight, but I felt I must in light of what has been said about the operations of the Intelligence Committee on which I sit. It has been suggested that this motion is unnecessary because we are already conducting full oversight. Oversight means collecting the information and then acting on it. That is what oversight is. That is what is expected of Congress under the Constitution. We have not conducted that oversight. On the committee, as a committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has not collected information about purported possible or former detention facilities currently or formerly operated by the United States Government, regardless of location, where the detainees in the global war on terrorism are or were being held. Perhaps the chairman has had some briefings, because there are very many things that the chairman of the committee gets to hear that the rest of the committee does not, but we have not. The ranking minority member has told me that she has not. This motion would be worthwhile to be undertaken.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, after this week we will be adjourning, we are told, for about 6 weeks or more in order to accommodate the court schedule in Texas. There are, therefore, some things that we should get done this week. Many of us opposed the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill because we thought it was a mess. At least we want it to succeed as best it can for the seniors, but it is so confusing that not even the Bush administration is able to get out the proper information to the very seniors who must make a decision about which plan to choose. Seniors want help with their ever-increasing prescription drug costs, but they have voiced frustration and confusion over the law that the Republicans passed. The administration has distributed inaccurate and incomplete information, and Republicans want to penalize any senior who does not sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15. Congress should not leave town without giving the seniors at least an additional 6 months to help make a decision that they can live with, that can give them at least some help with their prescription drug costs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for all of his good work and for yielding me the time now. I rise in opposition to the PATRIOT Act conference report. These provisions and many others have a deep impact on the freedoms and civil liberties of all Americans. Now, some will say we need these provisions to track down terrorists and build cases against them. But what is often unsaid is that these provisions will also be used against people who have committed no crime and who are completely innocent. It is because of that that the PATRIOT Act must be seen as something that affects all of us. Searching business records can sweep up people, most of whom are innocent. A small number of unnecessary intrusions can have a broadly chilling effect. Proponents of the PATRIOT bill before us will say that it is directed against terrorists, not law-abiding citizens. But they should try to tell that to Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon. Mr. Mayfield, an attorney, was detained by investigators last year as a material witness under authority granted through the PATRIOT Act. They alleged that his fingerprints were found on a bag linked to the terrorist bombings in Madrid, Spain. More so-called evidence was collected when his residence was searched without his knowledge under Section 213. However, the investigators were wrong. The FBI has issued an apology for his wrongful detention. But this is small conciliation for a lawyer and Muslim American whose reputation was tarnished by the investigation. Of course, some mistakes will occur. But this bill strikes the wrong balance and makes those errors more likely. It also allows the fact, the very fact of such a search to remain undisclosed to the subject indefinitely. I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed conference report and protect the liberties and freedoms of our citizens that are central to what it means to be an American.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this conference report on the PATRIOT Act. Simply stated, Mr. Speaker, passing this conference report today will institutionalize an abridgment of the Bill of Rights. Like all of my colleagues, I support common sense measures that will help our law enforcement and intelligence organizations protect the American people. For example, I support the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that permit surveillance or physical searches in foreign intelligence investigations where the ``significant'' purpose of the action is to collect intelligence. I also favor the provisions that allow the sharing of foreign intelligence information with federal law enforcement agencies, or with intelligence, protective, immigration, or military personnel for their official use. These are useful and necessary provisions that have clearly benefited our intelligence and law enforcement counterterrorism efforts without endangering the civil liberties of Americans. However, the conference report before us today contains too many provisions and excludes too many others, making it impossible for me to support it in its current form. When this bill was on the House floor in July, I expressed grave concern about several provisions, including Section 213, which allows the so called ``sneak and peek'' searches in anyone's home, as well as Section 215, which allows investigators broad access to any record without probable cause of a crime. This bill has not improved with age. If passed, this bill would, among other things: Allow the ``sneak and peak'' searches to go on with no meaningful judicial review for at least 4 more years. Allow the government to spy on your library book checkout habits and possibly your conversations with your attorney for at least 4 more years. Allow secret eavesdropping and secret search orders that do not name a target or a location for at least 4 more years. This bill effectively guts the Fourth Amendment. Let me repeat that. This bill guts the Fourth Amendment. How can any American feel ``secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches'' if the Department of Justice can send agents into one's home without notice, either before or after the fact? True, this new version of the Act provides for a 90- day maximum for notification of a subject that her or his dwelling or business has been searched, but it is weak protection that in effect allows the fact of a search to be concealed from the subject indefinitely. How can any American feel ``secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches'' if the government can demand access to privileged information, potentially including conversations between a citizen and his or her lawyer? How can any American feel ``secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches'' if the government is allowed to eavesdrop on a telephone conversation or secretly search a home or business and, in effect, fill in the names and locations on the search order later? The search powers that would be reauthorized for federal law enforcement are too sweeping and will receive too little oversight if this bill passes in its current form, and that is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Finally, this bill is significant for what it does not do: it fails to restructure the homeland security grant formula to a risk-based model. There is simply no excuse for a State like New Jersey to get a smaller percentage of homeland security grants than States that clearly are not at the same level of risk of being attacked. Homeland Security grant money should be distributed based on risk, not on politics. The House strongly supported changing the distribution formula so that States, like New Jersey, that face greater risk of terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events would get a greater share of the grant money, a viewed shared by Secretary Chertoff. Further, the members of the 9/11 Commission recently reiterated their support for a change in the formula and said, ``it should be obvious that our defenses should be strongest were the enemy intends to strike--and where we are most vulnerable.'' Failing to distribute these vital homeland security grants according to risk is like sending hurricane preparedness funds to North Dakota. They may be well-received, but sending them to a low-risk area comes at a price to parts of the country that need it more. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly warned of the threat to transportation and economic infrastructure targets in New Jersey, and we know from published press reports that Al Qaeda operatives have conducted surveillance activities against economic and other targets in New Jersey. Under this bill, New Jersey will not receive the Federal support it needs to harden these targets or full range of tools that our police and other first responders would require to respond should another 9/11-style attack occur. The conferees had a chance to correct this glaring weakness but they failed to do so, and if for no other reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report. As President Woodrow Wilson said almost 100 years ago, ``liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it.'' Today, we have made the mistake of ignoring history and increased the government's power at the expense of our citizen's liberty. This is a grave error, and it is why I will vote against reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 335, the bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the House companion bill. This public-private partnership gives the opportunity to young people to set and achieve personally challenging goals that build character and foster community service, personal development, and citizenship. To earn a Congressional Award, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina said, participants set and achieve individual goals in the areas of public service, personal development, physical fitness and expeditions. We in New Jersey are particularly proud of the Congressional Award because the sponsor of the bill originally, 26 years ago, here in the House of Representatives, was Representative Jim Howard of New Jersey. The award is so good because all young people are equally able to earn the Congressional Award because the goals set are based on individual interests and ability. The young person is not selected to receive the Congressional Award; she or he earns it. The Congressional Award facilitates neighborhood networks, enabling disadvantaged youth to become part of a community. It attracts youth from all backgrounds. The Congressional Award program fits nicely with extracurricular activities in schools and various youth programs, including Key Clubs, Service Clubs, Scouting, 4-H, and so forth. I have seen the program provide an opportunity for young people to learn from adults who will encourage and support them along the way to earning the Congressional Award. The award program looks to teachers, guidance counselors, leaders of school and youth groups to spread the word about the program. The award can act as an important component for the personal development of young people. The program establishes a sense of self-confidence and helps enhance problem-solving skills. And perhaps the most important lesson, certainly one of the most important lessons that people can learn, is how to set achievable goals and then how to achieve them. Created by Congress 26 years ago, the Congressional Award receives no Federal funding. It is fully funded by charitable contributions. However, Congress has assisted the program by authorizing the U.S. Mint to strike medals presented to the recipients. Members of the House and of the Senate recognize their constituents who earn Bronze, Silver and Gold medals. The winners of the Gold Medal Award participate in a ceremony here in Washington held annually. This year, the number of Gold Medal recipients represented more than 25 States. The 12th Congressional District of New Jersey, my district, is pleased and proud to have 1,004 active participants, more than any other district in the country. There were five Gold Medalists from the 12th District in 2005. There is already a Gold Medalist approved for 2006, and I expect more. I look forward to presenting the awards to them and to dozens of Bronze and Silver Award winners. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Congressional Award Act.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we return for part two of the budget reconciliation bill. Just before Thanksgiving, the Republican majority cut investments in education, American competitiveness, and programs for the needy. Today, they will give a tax cut to the top 1%. It is a reverse-Robin Hood value system. Apparently, the Republican leadership thinks that the middle class is not working hard enough. They believe that the middle class needs to work harder so that the top 1% can take home more money. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral decision to make. I believe it is immoral to cut $50 billion from Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, child care payment enforcement, and foster care in order to pay for a $56 billion tax cut for capital gains and dividends. People with income of more then one million dollars--the top two- tenths of one percent of the population would get $32,000 dollars. Most tax filers, those with income below $40,000, would get $7. Those with income above $1 million--not just those worth more than a million, but those who have income and stock market earnings of more then $1 million each year--would receive about half of this $56 billion tax cut. Worse yet, you may have noticed that if we cut taxes by $56 billion and cut spending by $50 billion, we have increased the debt. We have gone from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion to a projected deficit of $3.5 trillion. With the deficit projected to rise to $640 billion by 2015, this is no time to pile on even more. This bill will force us to borrow more from China. This is more debt we will force our children and grandchildren to pay interest on. And for what? So the wealthiest 1% can get an even larger tax break. Mr. Speaker, I believe there are problems with our tax system. I have supported tax cuts in the past and I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to achieve them. However, today we are ignoring a tax problem that affects my constituents greatly. Many of my middle class constituents are forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This year, 3.5 million taxpayers will owe AMT. Yesterday's AMT tax bill was just a sham, and is likely to go nowhere. With this package, Republicans knowingly and deliberately have removed the AMT correction and thereby will increase the taxes on more than 17 million middle- class working families next year by failing to extend the higher exemptions for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that expire in several weeks. If we fail to include this in budget reconciliation, it will grow to 19 million taxpayers next year. More than half of all couples with two children and income between $75,000 and $100,000 will have to pay AMT next year. This is wrong and should be addressed. We could solve this problem today by slightly reducing the recent tax cut for those making more then $1 million a year. Republicans are so determined to extend tax cuts for the wealthy that they are willing to deny relief to the middle class. Mr. Speaker, these votes ae about our priorities and values. I ask my colleagues to change the priorities of this Congress.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery bus boycott. The boycott was a pivotal moment that turned the tide in this Nation's history, and it was initiated by the simplest of actions, undertaken by the most unimposing of individuals--the late Rosa Parks, whose death on October 24 we continue to mourn. In the United States, we are born and raised to believe in individual freedom and equality. We read of it in our founding documents, we live and breathe it, we are surrounded by it and immersed in it. Confronted, then, by the denial of individual freedom and equality, Ms. Parks put the nation to a test of its principles, without knowing that her simple act of defiance would reverberate around the world. What followed, as we all know, was nothing short of the transformation of the nation. And so I rise today to again honor Rosa Parks, and to commemorate the Montgomery bus boycott, but also to acknowledge--I am saddened to say-- that we seem to have a very long way to go yet in the United States to ensure racial and ethnic equality. We must honor those who struggled in the Montgomery bus boycott, those who worked for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, by ensuring today that all America are entitled to vote, are not intimidated to vote, and that there votes are accurately counted. Mr. Speaker, I commend Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and all those who launched the Montgomery bus boycott, resulting in the end of segregation on buses and commencing the transformation of the Nation. I call on my colleagues to continue the unending struggle to make the United States the shining example of freedom, democracy and equality for all that the founding fathers intended it to be and the civil rights movement brought into fruition.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 605 today, the vote on H.R. 3058, Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, I was present for the debate but unintentionally did not record my vote. Had my vote been recorded, I would voted ``yea.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I and my Democratic colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence publicly discussed a critical item of unfinished business for this House--specifically, the need for the committee to undertake a detailed examination of the Iraq weapons of mass destruction (WMD) intelligence failure. We need to undertake this inquiry because this is not the last time that we will need intelligence that's based on good methods, critical thinking--in fact, skeptical thinking that really looks at the uncertainties in the intelligence. We have to learn to get this right. There will be other times when we need it. Now, the President has said that those who are raising questions about the war in Iraq and how we got there are trying to rewrite history. Actually, that's not true. History is not being rewritten. History cannot be written because no one has allowed the facts to be assembled. That is what we are talking about here. We have tried, but we have been blocked repeatedly in our attempts to do so. This matter is of critical importance. And it is, of course, ironic that at a time when we are fighting a war in the name of democracy and the freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry, that here we are stymied in our freedom of inquiry. And it is freedom of inquiry not for political points or our personal curiosity. It is so that we can, for the future, have an intelligence system that is based on critical thinking, skeptical thinking and good methods. That is the point. Let me just say that the line that we hear is, ``There is not much that needs to be investigated, there is not much need for oversight, because you knew all this all along. And furthermore, it is unpatriotic.'' It is unimportant, and yet if you ask for it, you are unpatriotic. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you can't have it both ways. I wish I could say that the refusal to investigate the Iraq intelligence failure is an isolated case. It is not. For over 2 years, I've pressed this House to investigate how it was that the name and cover status of a serving CIA Clandestine Services officer made its way from the CIA to the White House political office and thence to the press. Eight separate times in eight separate votes, the leadership of this Congress shut down any effort to get the information about the release of the identity of an intelligence employee. Conducting oversight of this matter is something that is central to our responsibility to look after the wellbeing and effectiveness of those people that we ask to take risks for us around the world. Yet in eight separate votes, it was shut down. Mr. Speaker, it's time--indeed well past time--for this Congress to do its job and conduct oversight of these and other intelligence matters. We cannot protect our Nation from future threats if we do not learn the full lessons of conflicts past, and this is especially critical in the realm of intelligence. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in this effort.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the sham piece of legislation before us. It is not designed to express the will of the House on Iraq. It is a political stunt intended to avoid a deeply serious, much-needed debate on the most pressing issue facing our country today. Yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, introduced a resolution calling for the redeployment of American forces from Iraq. The resolution would require us to maintain a sizeable quick reaction force in the region, and to reinvigorate our diplomatic efforts to bring about peace and security for the Iraqi people by truly internationalizing our efforts there. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has correctly observed that at present, our policy in Iraq ``is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion,'' and that we cannot continue on this present course, because to do so is to court disaster. Based on visits to Iraq, discussion with military leaders there and in Washington, he said that the continued presence of our troops does not advance our security nor that of Iraq. He also said that the American people are way out in front of the Congress on this issue. In all of these things, he spoke the truth. But in the eyes of the majority and the Bush White House, the gentleman's resolution is, in the words of White House spokesman Scott McClellan ``a surrender to the terrorists.'' They have accused him--as they have others who dare to question their failed policy in Iraq--of being unpatriotic. Sadly, this is a tactic we have seen before. But it is deeply corrosive and it must stop. Every American has the right to question their leaders, period. There is a reason the majority and the President don't want to be questioned about Iraq. There are several reasons, in fact. This war was started based on faulty and misrepresented intelligence. It has been prosecuted without the number of troops or the amount of equipment that was known to be necessary before it started. And today, it continues without broad international cooperation or an exit strategy. Answering questions about any and all of these is admittedly difficult. But hiding from the answers is not only cowardly, it is irresponsible. I too have visited our troops in Iraq, and they are best served if we face the truth--with the humility that come from recognizing their valor, dedication, and sacrifice. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has said, things are not going as advertised in Iraq, and the American people know it. Three years of mistakes and even falsehoods--about the threat Saddam posed, about the ease of total victory, about how Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction, about the cost to America's military and budget, among others--have finally caught up with this Administration and the Congressional leadership. The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers a plan for getting us out of Iraq strategically, methodically, and successfully. It outlines a way forward for our country to deal with the number one moral and political issue confronting our nation today. We should be debating his proposal, not mocking it. Meeting the challenge that faces us in Iraq requires courage and honesty. The actions of the majority show neither today. I am sorely disappointed that they have chosen to act so irresponsibly.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to oppose the Labor-HHS-Education conference report, which is the most recent evidence that working and middle class Americans are paying the price for the Republican economic agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Not only does this immoral budget fail to provide for what the American people need now, it also fails to address what it will take to be economically competitive in the future. Overall, the conference report cuts education, health care, and human services by $1.5 billion from what was spent on these efforts last year. Meanwhile, Republicans will spend $11 billion this week on a capital gains and dividend income tax cut that will provide 53 percent of its benefit to people making more than $1 million per year. Their plan spends more on tax cuts this week alone ($70 billion) than on both the Department of Education and the Department of Labor ($68 billion) for an entire year. Funding for education is also cut by $784 million, the first time the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act will have been cut since the law was enacted. Title I, which is the core of NCLB's efforts to improve reading and math skills, receives the smallest increase in eight years. Because it fails to keep pace with our growing population, 3.1 million low-income children will be left behind. A program for which I have consistently advocated is Mathematics & Science Partnerships. Under this program, grants are first made to states, which, in turn, make grants to partnerships that must include a state agency; an engineering, math or science department of a college or university; and a high-need school district. Grantees use these funds to establish rigorous math and science programs; recruit math, science and engineering majors into teaching; and improve the teaching skills of math and science teachers. Without significant investment in math and science education, we will not be competitive with countries like China who are graduating nine times the number of engineering students that we are producing in America. Unfortunately, this conference report appropriates $6 million less than the House passed earlier this year and $85 million (32 percent) less than the President's request. Also important for long term economic competitiveness is the Educational Technology State Grants Program. Like math and science partnerships this program received $25 million less than the House bill, $150 million (35 percent) less than the Senate bill, and $221 million (45 percent) less than the current appropriation. This is exactly the wrong direction to be taking the country. We can not stay globally competitive if we are not teaching our children the skills and knowledge they will need to be the innovators of tomorrow. Education for the disabled is also slashed. This bill cuts the Federal share of special education costs from 18.6 percent in FY 2005 to 18.0 percent by providing the smallest increase for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in a decade. The bill provides $4 billion less than Republicans promised for IDEA. Similarly, the bill cuts $17 million for vocational education. This cut will force local school boards to raise funds or cut other services to make up the shortfall. This will not prepare our children with the high tech vocational education they will need to obtain a job that pays well but for which a college degree is not necessary. With 7.4 million Americans out of work it is unclear to me why Republicans are cutting the Community College Initiative. This initiative would train workers for high skill, high paying jobs, yet it is being reduced by $125 million, denying this assistance to 100,000 Americans of a continued education to help them get a new job. This bill also cuts job search assistance through the Employment Service by $89 million (11 percent) and unemployment insurance by $245 million (7 percent), eliminating help for 1.9 million people. This bill is no better for those attending college full-time. Despite the fact that higher education is increasingly expensive, the majority has decided not to increase the maximum Pell grant. Rather it is being frozen for the fourth straight year, and no new funding is provided for any other student financial aid and support programs, even though college costs have increased by $3,095 (34 percent) since 2001. College students are not the only ones left out in the cold by this bill. Families and seniors who cannot afford to pay the expected 46 percent increase for natural gas and 28 percent for home heating oil this winter will have to get by without energy assistance from the federal government. For some reason Republicans have refused to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps keep the heat on for people who cannot otherwise heat their homes in winter. As this bill hurts families' ability to pay for college and heat their homes, it also deals a blow to their ability to receive healthcare. Nearly 46 million Americans are without health insurance, yet Republicans provide virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers beyond the amount approved last year. They also eliminate the Healthy Communities Access Program altogether along with the state planning grants to improve health care coverage. Where do the Republicans find the moral justification to cut these programs while planning to pass another $70 billion tax cut for the top 1%? The bill does little to prepare for long-term healthcare concerns or invest in medical research. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is cut $249 million (3.9 percent). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) receives a (0.7 percent) increase--its smallest increase in 36 years, and not enough to keep the number of research grants from declining for the second year in a row. How are we supposed to remain the world leader in health research with funding numbers like this? I believe American leadership is fueled by national investments in an educated and skilled workforce, groundbreaking federal research, and a steadfast commitment to being the most competitive and innovative Nation in the world. We must make the decision now to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation and competitiveness. This bill takes us in the opposite direction. America's global leadership in technological advancement and innovation is being seriously challenged by other countries. The warning signs could not be clearer. The rest of the world is increasing its capacity, its investments, and its will to catch up with us. We cannot ignore this challenge. Americans again must innovate in order to create new thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for our children. Today this bill moves us further away from achieving this goal.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose strongly the budget reconciliation bill under consideration. Those who support this bill claim it imposes spending discipline to pay for the costs of hurricane relief; in truth, it only continues the majority's pattern of taking from the middle class and the needy to give it to the wealthiest percent. The American people came together to respond to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Families donated record amounts to charities and opened their doors to those displaced by the storm. But now the Republicans are using Katrina to divide our Nation again. They claim that deep cuts of $54 billion are needed in programs like Medicaid, food stamps and child support enforcement to pay for hurricane relief. These cuts will neither pay for Katrina relief nor reduce the deficit. These are being used to pay for a portion of the $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that we will be considering shortly. Mr. Speaker, these cuts are being made on the backs of the working class, seniors and middle class families. In many cases, those who have the least are being made to sacrifice the most. For example, there are about one million Medicaid recipients in New Jersey. Almost half of them are children. This budget reconciliation bill would slash funding for Medicaid by $11.4 billion, putting our nation's most vulnerable citizens, including those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, at risk of losing the only health insurance they have. Another provision in the bill cuts $796 million from food stamps. Again, how can the majority even consider these cuts when the hurricanes cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes and livelihoods? Cutting food stamps for the impoverished while giving tax breaks to wealthiest America is not just bad policy, it is immoral. New Jersey is hit particularly hard by many of the cuts in this bill. We all know that the price of heating a home, either with natural gas or heating oil will be extremely high this year because of rising energy prices. Families are bracing for higher bills. And yet, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps people pay their energy bills when it is needed most is being cut by more than $10 million in New Jersey alone. As a result, about 20,000 New Jerseyans are expected to lose much needed assistance. I assume those well-to-do families receiving tax breaks instead will sleep in warm homes this winter. Why the majority is choosing this path baffles and sorely disappoints me. The list of cuts goes on. In New Jersey alone 3,000 mothers will be dropped from the Women Infant Children (WIC) program which helps mothers care for their babies before and after birth by ensuring they get proper healthcare, food and training for being a parent. Five hundred children in New Jersey currently attending Head Start will be cut out of this important childhood education and development program. Two thousand, nine hundred low-income and disabled people will be cut from Section 8 housing vouchers, all in New Jersey alone. New Jersey will lose $11 million for cleaning water for drinking and recreation. Child support enforcement is also slashed. Mr. Speaker, I thought the majority believed in accountability and in fathers paying a fair share for the upbringing of their children. If they do, why are they cutting funding for enforcing child support collections by nearly $5 billion? A college education will soon get even more expensive if this bill passes. 125,000 college students in New Jersey will be affected. That's because the plan makes $14.3 billion in cuts to federal student financial aid, the largest cut in history. 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. It is wrong to cut financial aid for students and families struggling to pay for college in order to pay for more tax breaks for the richest Americans. Financial barriers should never prevent a qualified student from going to college, and that is why America has long since made the commitment to help all Americans pay for it. Federal support for student loans is good for our economy and world leadership. Using these funds to pay for tax breaks for people who need them least robs us of an important investment in our future. Mr. Speaker, this budget reconciliation bill is terribly misguided. Why should we have yet another tax cut for the top one percent, paid for with cuts to investments in critical areas like health, environment and education? And why, further, should we go even deeper into debt-- borrowing even more money from China--for plans that we should be ashamed to force upon our children and grandchildren? Together we can do better, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help schools implement energy saving measures to reduce their energy costs. We are all too painfully aware of the rising cost of energy. Americans across the Nation are being forced to make tough decisions in order to heat their homes or fill up their gas tanks. The recent spike in energy prices will also be felt in our schools which already spend $6 billion on energy costs--more than the amount they spend on textbooks and computers combined. Schools across the country are already facing tight budgets; rising energy costs will only worsen their budget situation and could lead to the loss of important school programs. However, there are ways that schools can offset the soaring price of energy. Through basic changes in the operations and maintenance of school buildings, operating costs can be reduced from 5-15 percent. To achieve even greater savings, schools can retrofit their buildings with more efficient systems and appliances. Although these investments produce economic benefits in the long term, start up financing is often difficult for cash strapped school systems. That is why I am introducing legislation that will provide schools with federal funding to implement these structural changes. Specifically, my legislation will provide grants through the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy for schools that are seeking to make energy efficient upgrades in their schools or build a new energy efficient building. Additionally, this legislation will allow schools to work with the Department of Energy to improve transportation systems that are available to students, employees and other members of the community. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will benefit our environment while assisting schools reduce their operating costs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about International Education Week this week sponsored by the Departments of State and Education. International Education Week marks the importance of teaching our children and the people of our country foreign languages, traditions, cultures. This is not simply a feel-good effort of cultural enrichment. Whether it is a matter of competitiveness, economics, national security, in this era we must understand other cultures, their languages, their traditions, as quite literally now anyone on this planet could be our collaborators, our colleagues, our competitors, our customers. Certainly this event should reaffirm our value of a strong foreign language education in which culture and traditions are taught alongside the structure and vocabulary. The acquisition of foreign languages beginning in the elementary years is found to create neuroconnections and boost various thinking processes. Those who study foreign language can pursue careers that benefit all of us here in America. These students are gaining experiences which will serve them well in a variety of careers and serve the Nation through a better understanding of the world in which we live and compete.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the position in this resolution that parents do have responsibility for their children's upbringing and a school district cannot supplant those rights, I must oppose this resolution. I oppose this resolution because it declares that the court should rehear the case in order to reverse its decision. It should not be the role of the legislative branch to dictate to the court system how it should rule. The founding fathers created three coequal branches of government for good reason. It is for this constitutional principle that I must oppose H. Res. 547.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 288, recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution. First introduced in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and later as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, this legislation has continued to be a vital part of providing equal support for children with disabilities. Before its passage, children with disabilities were either segregated from other students or had little opportunity for education. Today, about 6.1 million children with disabilities are receiving special education and related services. As a former educator and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I recognize the importance of continued Federal support of special education. Research shows that when we invest in the education of children with disabilities from birth throughout their school years, our entire society benefits. Giving these children the opportunities they deserve directly impacts their ability to live independently as contributing members of society. Congress reauthorized IDEA almost a year ago, and it has continued to provide enormous support to children in dire need. However, as this resolution states, we have not yet met our commitment to fund 40 percent of the additional average pupil expenditure. Until we fulfill our responsibility, we are failing our Nation's children. This funding is needed by school districts that must make up the difference of what the Federal Government is not funding. IDEA is a powerful civil rights law that was intended to provide education to more than one million children who were marginalized because of their disabilities. Today, it does much more. IDEA is based on the premise that children in our society are capable of success, and this law has raised the standards in education for all children. In doing so, it has also produced much improved results, proving that when we dedicate resources and attention to our children they can succeed. IDEA requires teachers to be qualified and fair in their classrooms. IDEA also protects and supports the parents of children with disabilities. These parents have challenging, full-time jobs in raising their children. However, when given the support that they need, their children succeed. There cannot be a greater reward for a parent than this. This law focuses on results. It strives to direct funding to where it makes a difference, to give teachers and schools the resources they need to help students. I believe that more funding will produce greater results. While we have, as a society, made great strides, we can not let these children fall behind. I urge my fellow Representatives to work towards full funding of this act. We should be proud that we are now providing free and appropriate public education to every child with a disability. This law adds to the basic right of education the rights to fairness, support, and respect. I join my fellow Representatives in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House considered the so-called Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act, H.R.1751. We have all heard of the tragic and deeply troubling violence directed at judges or other court employees. In just March of this year, U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow came home from a day at work to discover her husband and mother shot dead in the basement. We clearly need to act to help protect the lives and security of all federal court employees, including judges. H.R. 1751 would authorize the appropriation of additional funds over the next five years to increase court security, and to provide grants to States do the same and to help protect witnesses. The bill would also toughen the penalties on the books for threatening or committing acts of violence against federal judges or court employees. While I support and believe we need to protect federal court employees, there are too many troubling and fundamental problems with this bill for me to support it. This bill creates 22 new mandatory minimum penalties. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They discount mitigating factors in crimes, prevent judges from meting out punishments that are tailored to the criminal, and mandatory minimum have proven discriminatory to people of color. They may make legislators feel good but they have been shown not to reduce crime rates. Even the Judicial Conference, the group that represents Federal judges, has said that mandatory minimums violate common sense. Also troubling is the fact that this legislation creates seven additional death penalties. Yet, research has shown that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let me repeat, the death penalty simply does not reduce crime. The death penalty is also flawed because it is applied unevenly and unjustly along racial lines, and far too often is applied to someone who is only later exonerated, often too late. Given these two deeply troubling problems with this bill, I cannot support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time. I rise to urge support of H. Con. Res. 260. I want to thank first my colleagues and friends, Chairman Hyde and Representative Lantos. Both have been tremendously helpful in bringing this resolution forward. This resolution has the support of 65 bipartisan cosponsors here in the House. As my friend pointed out, it commemorates the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, a hallmark declaration by the Roman Catholic Church on religious respect and interfaith relations, and it celebrates the historic relationship between Jews and Catholics and among other religions worldwide. My resolution also calls for this country and this Congress to continue to condemn and combat anti-Semitism and all forms of religious hatred and bigotry around the world. First a little bit of history, Mr. Speaker. This was initiated by Pope John XXIII through the Second Vatican Council, and Nostra Aetate then was issued by, Pope Paul VI, in October, 1965, 40 years ago, after a vote of 2,221 to 88 by the Catholic bishops. It is a historic declaration, and we should remember its essential message: the need for interreligious dialogue and religious respect, and that is a message that is still vitally important today. Seen from this perspective, today, the affirmations of this document may not seem so impressive. But those of us who remember back to that time, on a bit of reflection, will understand how monumental this statement was, how far it reached throughout the world, beyond the Catholic Church, beyond Christians. It was a paradigm shift in how religious people think about each other. As my friend, the gentleman from Oregon said, in this day we certainly need a refresher course in how religious people can think about each other in a positive way. Over the past 40 years, there has been noticeable progress. Nostra Aetate was written by Catholics for Catholics, but its impact has been felt by almost all people of faith in the world. Less than three pages in length, this document, that goes by the Latin words that mean ``in our time,'' was a rare moment of self-check for Catholics. We all know how hard it is to look inside ourselves and find things that need to be improved, things that are wrong and need to be changed. Nostra Aetate was a controversial document at the time. I am not sure that anyone knows all the internal politics that went into writing it, but even in the press at the time, it was known to be controversial. Why should we be talking about it here in the House of Representatives? Why should we be talking about religion? Why should we be talking about a Roman Catholic document? Is it even appropriate here? Well, certainly not in a worshipful or a theological or an ecclesiastical way, but this is an important document in world history that says a lot to us as Americans. Remember, there is much that we honor in our country's history. There is much genius that we see in our founding documents, in our Constitution. One of the greatest accomplishments of this country was to establish freedom of religion, freedom for religious belief and religious practice, and freedom from religion. That is rare, even today. It truly was a stroke of genius by our Founders. And, as so much, in our constitutional heritage it is still a work in progress. Freedom of religion, freedom for religion, freedom from religion are concepts that are hard to incorporate into our lives. We are not talking about simple tolerance, but a recognition that if we are a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, then it is not enough just to recognize the right of each other to exist, but as a nation we achieve positive social and political good that comes from learning from and drawing on and building up each other. So it is indeed appropriate that we in this body, as we wrestle with the modern-day embodiment of the ideas of our Founders, that we recognize this historic document. It was a bold and courageous document. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to face some obvious and unattractive blemishes that one might have. It is bold and courageous to say that another's fundamental faith and belief has validity, because that can only raise questions about the meaning of one's own belief. This was a courageous document. Now, I speak as one who by affirmation, heritage, upbringing, and religious practice is neither Roman Catholic nor Jewish, but the change that this made in America certainly has improved my life and the life of every American. Anti-Semitism has been a poison that has from time to time surfaced in our country. Certainly, we see it on the rise in too many places around the world today. But this document put a check on the official sanction of religious intolerance, and it has led to a number of improvements. Father John Pawlikowski, pointed out that this year Nosta Aetate has led to a cleansing of educational materials, and the removal of hateful and bigoted language that previously appeared. It has led to mutual recognition of the spiritual value of others' religious sacred writings of others; it has led to a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between the church and other religions, a process that is still under way. It led to Pope John Paul's visit to the Auschwitz death camp when he spoke about the memory of the people whose sons and daughters were intended for total extermination. He said that it is not permissible for anyone to pass by the inscriptions there with indifference. It led to his unprecedented visit to a synagogue in Rome in 1986, and to Pope John Paul's visit to the Holy Land, including Israel and Palestine. It led to a pivotal moment when he shook hands with Prime Minister Ehud Barak. It led to the moment when he walked across the plaza at the western wall and inserted his handwritten prayer expressing Christian regret for the wrongs done to the Jewish people. This had reverberations all around the world and certainly here in the United States, the country built on the concept of liberty and religious freedom. This morning on public radio, a young man presented his essay called ``This I Believe.'' Eboo Patel is the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Corps, a Chicago-based organization fostering the international interfaith youth movement. He pointed out that when he attended high school in the western suburbs of Chicago not many years ago, he, as a Hindu, ate lunch with a Jew, a Mormon, a Catholic, and a Lutheran. They were all devout to a degree, he said, but they never really talked about religion. They all knew that they had some differences in their permitted diets and certain times that they could not eat certain things. He was comfortable in his tolerance for the others. But then he went on to talk about the most painful recollection of his life, which occurred when he allowed anti-Semitic comments about his friend to go unchallenged. He quoted the great American poet Gwendolyn Brooks: ``We are each other's business; we are each other's harvest; we are each other's magnitude and bond.'' He said, ``I cannot go back in time and take away the suffering of my Jewish friend, but through action, I can prevent it from happening to others.'' Martin Luther King in a different, but related, matter said, ``Through the laws that we pass,'' such as we pass in this body, ``we cannot change a person's heart. But,'' he said, ``we can restrain the heartless.'' Like Mr. Patel, none of us can go back, but we can look back and we can see the progress that has been made in the last 40 years to fulfill the spirit of Nostra Aetate; and we can continue every day to take action to ensure that it does not happen in our schools, in our communities, in our cities and towns. Nostra Aetate was not empty sentimentality; it was historic, important, and effective. It made a difference in the history of the world. As Rabbi David Rosen, the Director of the American Jewish Committee's Interreligious Department, wrote, ``Even if the effect of this transformation has not fully reached the rank and file around the world, its ramifications cannot be overestimated, and there is much to give thanks for on this anniversary. The anniversary 40 years ago at the end of October is well worth recognizing.'' Nostra Aetate was the first statement on interreligious respect that had been issued in the 2,000-year history of the church. Rabbi Gary Bretton Granatoor, Director of Interfaith Affairs at the Anti- Defamation League, reminded the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and me that the pilgrimage out of the wilderness took 40 years from Egypt to Sinai to Canaan. He said that it is not surprising that in 40 years, we have not fully achieved the vision of Pope John XXIII around the world or here in this country, but we have made enormous progress. Nostra Aetate demanded that the church and all people of faith examine themselves anew in relation to other peoples of faith. We need to ensure we carry this message of religious respect to all that we do here. We can learn the spirit of Nostra Aetate and take action to check religious bigotry, religious hatred and advance the American experiment--the American Dream--of a more perfect union, built not just on respect, but on an understanding that we are indeed a nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all are equal, and all have something to contribute to America's success.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of The Private Property Rights Protection Act, H.R. 4128. I have heard from a number of my constituents in New Jersey. They have come to my town hall meetings, sent me emails and called me on the phone, to express their concern about the potential for abuse of the power of eminent domain. I have heard their concerns and I share their concerns. That is why I support this legislation to make clear that local authorities may not use the power of eminent domain solely to increase the tax revenue for the town. H.R. 4128 is a bipartisan bill that responds to the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. Most troubling about the decision was that the Court upheld the right of New London to take private property and transfer it to another private individual for the purpose of increasing the tax revenue of the city. I am glad we are acting today to prevent this from becoming a regular practice. The rights of property owners were so important to our nation's founders that they enshrined property rights in our Constitution. They knew that towns and municipalities would need to look after the greater public good and occasionally acquire property with just compensation to the owners in order to use that property for public good. The power of eminent domain has enabled us to make many advances over the years. It was used to create the national railroad system, the interstate highway system, and make telephone, electric, sewer, and water lines available to all our communities. Eminent domain, when used property, is a critical power of government that has benefited people in New Jersey and across America. When used improperly, however, eminent domain is a fearsome power. Transfer of a person's property--particularly their home--to another private interest solely on the basis of tax revenue is an unwise and dangerous authority. With this bill, Congress is rightly acting to protect private property rights and ensure that property owners will not have their house taken from them by an over zealous town council seeking to increase its tax coffers. Mr. Chairman, while eminent domain is used across America for beneficial and important reasons that support the public good, we need to ensure that towns do not overstep their powers. H.R. 4128 helps define the boundary lines.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleague from Wisconsin in his effort to shed some light on a large array of questions that are before us. This cover-up theme of the cover-up Congress is so pervasive, and it is not just in this body, it seems to be in the other body. The other body in fact recently took some rather extreme parliamentary measures to force the issue, and some called it a gimmick. But it seemed to be the only way to break through this cover-up, to get answers to questions that we have in our oversight role in the U.S. Congress, to provide a balance of power, to be able to serve the American people as we need to do. I, for example, have introduced resolutions requesting information about the disclosure of identities of covert agents; and eight times in eight votes here in the House of Representatives those resolutions have been turned down in various committees. Eight times in eight separate votes in various committees, these efforts to get the information that we need in order to exert the oversight, to protect the men and women that we have asked to do dangerous jobs around the world. Of course, some things clearly have to be kept quiet for the sake of the safety and effectiveness of our troops overseas and so forth. But Congress has a very important oversight role under the Constitution; and in order to exert that role, we need information. I applaud the gentleman for doing all that he does to try to break through this cover-up theme.