Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in remembering the victims of September 11, 2001. There are still no words that any of us can speak that will truly ease the pain and the profound sense of loss that families of victims feel, so many in my own district. I continue to marvel at the courage and determination of the surviving families, a courage and determination that made the 9/11 Commission possible, overcoming opposition here and across town. We have an obligation to keep faith with those who perished and with the families they left behind. The best way we can do that is to take the 9/11 Commission recommendations seriously and act on them with dispatch. For a new generation of Americans, the phrase ``Remember Pearl Harbor'' has been replaced by ``Remember 9/11.'' Madam Speaker, let us honor those that we lost and the loved ones they left behind by acting expeditiously and in a bipartisan fashion to bring the 9/11 Commission recommendations to reality.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate The College of New Jersey on its Sesquicentennial. The College of New Jersey's academic tradition reaches back to 1855 when it was established by the state legislature as the New Jersey State Normal School. It was the first teacher training school in the state and the ninth in the nation. Governor Rodman Price, sometimes called the founder of the New Jersey Normal School, promoted the idea of a training institute for New Jersey's teachers and mobilized support among influential state leaders. Originally located on Clinton Avenue in Trenton, the Normal School flourished in the latter 1800s, expanding both its academic offerings and physical facilities. In 1925, the first four-year baccalaureate degree program was established. This change marked the beginning of The College of New Jersey's transition from a normal school to a teachers' college and was accompanied by a change in physical surroundings. In 1928, a beautiful 210-acre tract of land in Ewing Township was purchased as a new site for The College. Today, education--and higher education in particular--is more important than ever to solving the most pressing problems of our communities and the country. Access to an affordable, quality education is inseparable from our economic prosperity, national security, and civic health. I believe that The College of New Jersey is part of the solution to our pressing problems. In a world where other nations are investing far more of their resources in education and research, and are producing graduates who rival our own in many areas of manufacturing and development, a high quality education is essential to our future success. But higher education is more than just the means to achieve higher earning potential or to raise revenue; it is also a life-enriching experience. A key component of the university mission is to foster the academic and personal development of students civic engagement and community service, where students learn how to be active participants in democracy, as well as team athletics and student government, where students gain valuable leadership experience. The policies that we craft to enhance and advance education must close the achievement gap between the rich and the poor, and minority and non-minority students. They must help to recruit and retain top young college graduates into teaching, nursing, and other high priority fields to meet the country's needs. Our policies must also make a quality college education accessible and affordable for all Americans, and harness the power of higher education to move this country forward. The College of New Jersey is leading the way in accessibility and affordability. The College of New Jersey emphasizes the undergraduate experience. Academic programs are designed to provide students with an undergraduate education of exceptional quality. More than fifty liberal arts and professional programs are now offered through The College's seven schools; Art, Music and Media; Business; Culture and Society; Education; Engineering, Nursing; and Science. Today, The College provides academically prepared student with a challenging undergraduate education and a rewarding residential experience, small classes, and a prestigious faculty. Once again, I congratulate The College of New Jersey on its Sesquicentennial and I look forward to another one hundred and fifty years.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313, which would prevent federal courts from hearing cases related to provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in other jurisdictions. The Constitution--perhaps the greatest invention in history--has been the source of our freedom in this great country for more than two centuries. The framework of government it established has allowed our diverse people to live together, to balance our various interests, and to thrive. It has provided each citizen with broad, basic rights. The judiciary was designed to be the one branch of the federal government that is not influenced or guided by political forces. This independent nature enables the judiciary to thoughtfully and objectively review laws enacted by the legislative branch to ensure that Federal law is in line with the Constitution. Throughout the development of our nation, this check has been vital to protecting the rights of minorities. The legislation that we are considering today is a political measure that will threaten this precious system of checks and balances. Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, I am certain that the founding fathers did not intend for Congress to use this power to change the jurisdiction of the courts over a political issue. This legislation will set a dangerous precedent that Congress can deny the judicial branch the right to review specific pieces of legislation simply because Congress is concerned that the judiciary will find the legislation unconstitutional. This is a clear misuse of Congressional authority and it is a misguided attempt to legislate on a controversial social issue. In addition to undermining the authority of the judiciary, H.R. 3313 would deprive a minority population--gay men and women--of basic freedoms. This bill would limit their right to due process by barring individuals from challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Congress should not limit an individual's ability to seek redress in the court system simply because some Members object to the sexual orientation of others. And if that is not bad enough, H.R. 3313 would set a pattern that would cause unimaginable harm. Today its gay men and women, tomorrow laws dealing with any other area would be exempted for judicial review. Altering the framework of our government and restricting access to the courts is not the appropriate way to resolve a divisive political issue. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend Sandra Feldman on the occasion of her retirement from the Presidency of the American Federation of Teachers. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 714, honoring Sandra Feldman. Ms. Feldman has served as President of the American Federation of Teachers since 1997. In that time, she has dedicated herself completely to advancement of education. H. Res. 714 shows all Americans that a life committed to our youth and to our future does not go unnoticed. I am thankful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have voiced support for this bill and for the scores of citizens and activists around the country who have supported similar efforts. I urge all members of this body to join me in my praising of Sandra Feldman and her exemplary leadership. Sandra Feldman has been involved with public schools from her youth. As a child she attended a public school in New York City. Upon graduation, she attended Brooklyn College and received a Master's degree in English Literature from New York University. Eventually Ms. Feldman moved to the other side of the classroom and became a teacher herself, teaching to 2nd and 3rd graders in Manhattan. Still, Ms. Feldman's dedication to teaching and learning extended well beyond the classroom. In the 1960's, she became both teacher and an advocate. As an advocate, Ms. Feldman rose through the ranks of both the United Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers, serving as executive director of the UFT and eventually as President of both organizations. Her journey was not only unique, but inspiring. She was the first female President of the United Federation of Teachers in more than sixty years. She has earned recognition as an urban education expert and a persistent advocate for disadvantaged children. And she has served on numerous commissions, worked with UNICEF, and tackled issues ranging from child-welfare and labor to school vouchers. She has been recognized by the Ladies Home Journal as one of the ``100 Most Influential Women in America.'' And today, she deserves the recognition of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, these brief words cannot adequately describe a lifetime of service and commitment to the betterment of this great nation. Words can never truly convey the gratitude that my colleges and I feel toward Sandra Feldman for her consistent unwavering support for disadvantaged children and our nation's education system. But the reality is, our country and its children and its schools are better off because of her years of service. I ask my colleagues to support the passage of H. Res. 714 to recognize Sandra Feldman's contributions and leadership in improving the quality of teaching and learning.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sister Mary Simon for receiving the Judith Stanley Coleman Award from the Visiting Nurses Association of Central Jersey. The award is given annually to a community leader who exemplifies a positive attitude, significant service in health care, vigilance and passionate advocacy for community health issues, and strong networking in the community. Sister Simon is a tremendous person whose heart is full of compassion for her fellow humans and she fully deserves of this prestigious award. Sister Mary Simon has taught in various grammar schools throughout the diocese of Trenton over the past 19 years. In 1975, upon completion of her Master's in Education, she was appointed director of senior services in Keansburg. It was in this post that she determined that transportation, education, and health were the most pressing needs of local seniors. Sister Simon obtained a van for senior transportation and created a GED program for seniors to complete their high school diplomas. However, it was in health that Sister Simon found her true calling. She was able to get local nurses to conduct free blood pressure screening and health education classes for the local seniors. Sister says, soon she arranged with the Visiting Nurses Association of Central Jersey to identify local residents who needed care and assisted the nurses to meet the patient's needs. Six years later Sister Simon was appointed as the Executive Director of the Monmouth County Office of Aging. There she helped establish many innovative programs which still exist today, including a collaboration with the Visiting Nurses Association of Central Jersey that bring nursing and physical therapy to low income and minority seniors. In 1998, Sister Simon was appointed Coordinator of New Jersey Adult Protective Services. Working on behalf of seniors statewide, Sister Simon was responsible for overseeing the safety of the most at-risk seniors in the state--living in abusive or potentially abusive situations. After a long career spent improving the health of New Jersey seniors Sister Simon was ready to retire but soon she had a new assignment assisting seniors in central Jersey. Since 2001, she has been working on behalf of Bishop John Smith and the Trenton diocese again as Coordinator of their Ministry to the Aging. Sister Simon is now working on behalf of the 363,967 seniors in Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer and Burlington counties, many of whom I represent in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I again want to take this time to congratulate Sister Simon on behalf of the thousands of lives she has touched in her long tenure in New Jersey. Sister Mary Simon certainly deserves the Judith Stanley Coleman Award from the Visiting Nurses Association of Central Jersey. I thank her for all her hard work and wish her all the best in the future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns regarding H. Res. 713. I strongly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism. I certainly share the conviction of many of my colleagues who supported this resolution that Israel has the right to construct a security barrier. That right of protection should be unquestioned. In fact, I suggested the construction of a security barrier between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank years ago, long before the Israeli government proposed erecting such a security fence. While I support Israel's decision to build a security barrier, I recognize that the current path of the separation barrier has been questioned, notably by the Supreme Court of Israel, in large part because of the displacement of Palestinians. Fortunately, the orderly governmental process in Israel has resulted in a compromise that balances the security interests of Israel with rights of minorities. On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered the re-routing of a 20-mile section of the barrier inside the West Bank northwest of Jerusalem that was in the initial stages of construction because it was too burdensome on Palestinians. I applaud Israel's government for agreeing to comply with the Court's ruling. Despite these positive developments in the region, today we are considering in the House a resolution that is divisive and not constructive. Over the decades, the United States has been essential in facilitating negotiations along the road to peace. The U.S. should be first in support of Israel's right to build a fence if she believes it will protect her citizens. However, Congress should not formally endorse the wall in its existing form, nor should we oppose it. To do either compromises the U.S. and any peace process. The U.S. should not get involved in that issue except as a facilitator of negotiations between the parties to advance the cause of peace. I rarely vote present. However, the false choice presented by this resolution could justify neither a yea or nay vote. While the resolution expresses support for Israel's right to construct a security barrier, it is clear to me that this measure was a cynical attempt to divide people for political gain here in the United States. It is the responsibility of the pro-Israel community--of which I am a member--to support measures that advance the security of Israel. This legislation does not do that. This measure is a cynical attempt that purports to support Israel but uses inflammatory language directed at members of the international community. This resolution undermines the steps we have taken to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compromises our ability to assist in the future, and makes Israel and the entire region less secure. The future security of the Middle East depends on negotiating a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians that both guarantees Israel's security and establishes a Palestinian state. I cannot support resolutions, such as H. Res. 713, that are detrimental to this process.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would add $30 million to the salaries and expenses account of the General Accounting Office for the development of Scientific and Technology Assessment. This is something that is vital to us here in Congress. It would meet a bipartisan need of Congress to receive more objective expert and timely advice on the scientific and technological aspects of the issues before us. My amendment would avoid creating any new government agency or bureaucracy, but it would provide Congress with reputable and partial timely advice and analysis of emerging scientific and technological issues. This is something that was, until 10 years ago, offered by an in- house agency. That is no longer available to us, but the GAO has begun on a pilot basis assuming some of this need and providing us with scientific and technological assessment. Not to have that today is hampering us in doing our work. So this certainly should be added to the appropriation. It would enable Congress to understand the scientific and technological aspects of current and future legislative choices, be they in homeland security or national defense or medicine or telecommunications, agriculture, transportation, computer science. This is not just science for science's sake. This is to look at those scientific and technological aspects that are present in virtually everything we do here in Congress. When the Office of Technology Assessment was operating until a decade ago, they produced studies in such areas as colorectal cancer screening, teachers in technology, Super Fund actions, wage record information system, defense of medicine and medical malpractice, grain dust explosion, policy with regard to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The GAO in the last couple of years, picking up on this need that is currently unmet, has begun with some studies in the areas, for example, of biometrics, protecting against cyberattack. They have under way studies looking at smuggling of weapons of mass destruction and containing forest fires. I do not think there is anyone in this body who could argue that we do not need to be well informed in such areas. Whether it is aviation safety or AIDS education or Alzheimer's disease or testing in American schools, we need technological assessment. This legislation, this amendment to this appropriations bill, would provide that through the organ of the General Accounting Office. Because there has been resistance to reviving OTA, the Office of Technology Assessment, as it was, a number of us have been exploring other approaches, recognizing that every year that goes by without this capacity for in-house technological assessment represents lost opportunities, opportunities to save lives, to protect our towns and cities, and to commercialize new discoveries. This amendment will provide that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, many of us here in the House of Representatives woke up one day and said, say it is not so, Doug. We did not want to see him go. For many Members here, it was hard to understand how someone who did the job so well would want to leave voluntarily, but he has so much to give and will continue to give. I have worked with him on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, others on the Committee on International Relations. We all think he would be an outstanding committee chairman, and one of the things we lament is he is leaving before he gets to serve in that way. Most recently, I worked with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on efforts to improve the proficiency of Americans in foreign languages. I must say, it was a delightful and very productive experience working with him on that issue. The House will be diminished by his departure. There are very, very few people like the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) here. He is industrious, he is astute, he is judicious, he is well informed. He has a very broad perspective, and I mean that geographically, historically, and ideologically. By that I mean he is not ideologically entrenched. Sure, he has solid values and is a person with integrity, but he can work with others. A word that comes to mind is collegial. He is not self-serving. He is about serving others, his constituents, and, yes, other Members of the House, junior and senior Members. He is considerate. In every respect, in every circumstance, in every forum, I have seen nothing but the utmost consideration from the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). In fact, I would say he is truly wise because he understands that kindness is the greatest wisdom. We all wish the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and his wife, Louise, well. It is the gain of the Asia Foundation. I am sure he will contribute a great deal there, and I am here to join my colleagues to say thank you, Doug, for your service to us, to the House, to your constituents, and to America at large.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to particularly emphasize the importance of high-performance computing in the area of fusion energy science, an area where I have personal experience from my work at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Fusion offers the promise of abundant, safe, environmentally attractive energy for the U.S. and the world. The advances in computing over the last decade have revolutionized fusion science at Princeton and elsewhere. Previously scientists made calculations without computers for simplified situations; now they can take into account the details of real experimental conditions. Previously scientists could only make crude estimates of how for example turbulence in fusion fuel could cool the plasma lower than the very high temperatures needed for fusion; now they can calculate this process in detail. As a result the agreement between experiment and theory has improved dramatically. A decade or so ago, theoretical estimates could easily differ from experimental measurements by factors of 10 to 100, giving rise to heated scientific debate. How the debate is just as scientific and just as heated, but the argument is about factors like 1.5 or 2--a dramatic difference. Furthermore, this scientific understanding has led to techniques to quell the turbulent mixing and allow the fusion fuel to get much hotter, producing more fusion energy High-performance computing together with advanced experimental techniques, has truly revolutionized fusion energy science. Even with these recent advances, there is still much more to be learned about fusion systems through high-performance computing, and H.R. 4218 will help to make that possible. Fusion scientists need to combine all of the individual calculations of physical effects, which have been combined into an integrated simulation model that handles all of the different aspects of a fusion system--all at the same time. Such a model will allow fusion researchers to predict in detail the behavior of complete fusion systems and will allow them to design the cost- effective power plans that will be need in the future. This is truly a grand challenge that requires the level of high performance computing envisioned in H.R. 4218. It is also a grand challenge for humanity. Recent events have certainly reminded us that we need the abundant, safe and clean power that fusion can provide. Thus I strongly support H.R. 4218 for the advances it will produce in fusion energy science, as well as elsewhere in American science.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, physics is all around us. Physics has been highly successful in explaining many of the phenomena governing our natural world; it was a basis for the Renaissance and the enlightenment of western civilization. Through physics we can explore the diverse phenomena from the existence of black hole and to the composition of the atom and nucleus. Understanding mechanics, gravity and propulsion allowed us to develop machinery, bridges and rockets while knowledge about electricity and magnetism and matter led to lasers, light bulbs, telescopes, fiber optics, the internet and the huge market of consumer electronics. Physics research creates technological innovations, which drives the world's economic growth and markets. It has changed human life for the better. It has made major contributions to cutting-edge technologies such as Nanotechnology, Biotechnology and Information Technology. Physics research will help us to solve major new challenges in homeland security and find new energy sources. In 2005, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's theory of relativity. This resolution is the perfect opportunity to recognize and celebrate the importance of physics to our lives.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives did a good deed. The House passed a bill that I had introduced nearly 2 years ago known as the Private Relief bill, which will allow Duri Hasan and her four daughters who live in Milltown, New Jersey, to fulfill the dream that brought them to America. Nearly 3 years after the murder of their husband and father in a post-9/11 hate crime, Duri, Asna, Anum, Nida and Iqra received welcome and overdue news from the House of Representatives. Today, this body has helped them take a huge step toward putting the tragedy of September 15, 2001, behind them and put them back on track for American citizenship. I hope the Senate will move quickly on this. I am very thankful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this bill and for the scores of citizens, activists, and religious leaders around the country who have supported this. For any of my colleagues who are unfamiliar with the Hasan family, let me recall their tragic and heroic story. I think my colleagues will agree it is a true American epic filled with hopes and dreams, tragedy and hardship, and, thankfully, today, compassion in the form of a chance. Waqar Hasan came to the United States in 1993 from Pakistan in search of a better life for his family. A year later, he brought his wife, Durreshahwar, or Duri we know her as, and their four daughters. The family settled in Milltown, New Jersey, where they had relatives. Waqar supported the family working in a gas station in the area. In the fall of 2001, he was in Dallas to establish a convenience store. He planned to move his family there after the business got off the ground. However, on the night of September 15, 2001, just 4 days after the vicious 9/11 attacks, Mark Anthony Stroman walked into Waqar Hasan's convenience store in Dallas and shot the 46-year-old father to death. When asked by police why he shot Waqar, Stroman expressed no remorse: ``I did it to retaliate on local Arab Americans or whatever you want to call them,'' he said. ``I did what every American wanted to do, but didn't.'' Stroman is now on death row. Mr. Hasan was very much a victim of the attacks of 9/11, and his death was a hate crime if ever there was one. Before his death, Waqar had taken steps for him and his family to become American citizens. He was in the United States on an immigrant visa and was going through the paperwork towards citizenship. When he was brutally killed, his family's American future was placed in jeopardy. Their visas and green card applications were both dependent upon his visa. When he died, their hopes of American citizenship died with him. The Hasan family had lost their husband, father, and breadwinner in a most horrible way; and now, they were facing the threat of deportation. Mrs. Hasan and her teenage daughters think of themselves as Americans. The daughters are growing up here. Mrs. Hasan and all but the youngest daughter hold down jobs to make ends meet. One daughter attends Rutgers. Another daughter is studying at Kean College to become a teacher. They are the type of hard-working, reverent, patriotic, studious, industrious people that we want here in America; and they deserve to stay. For the past 2\1/2\ years, I have been working with government agencies to keep the Hasan family in this country. I have pursued and exhausted every possible legal remedy to help the Hasan family stay. My Private Relief bill is the Hasan family's last hope of attaining permanent legal residency and eventually citizenship. Today, the House of Representatives passed that bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is no more crucial time to demonstrate to Muslims in America and around the world that we are a tolerant and sympathetic people. We must seize opportunities to showcase America's commitment to the democratic values that we are making great sacrifices to promote overseas. This bill, of course, does not make everything all right. Duri Hasan and her daughters have lost their husband and father. Their lives have been given a severe blow. But with this bill, we avoid doing any further injury to them. I am very pleased to report the happy news to the Hasan family to whom today we here in the House have said, You belong here in America with us.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the list of recognized intelligence failures is depressingly long and still growing. Despite these documented missteps, the House Leadership has produced an Intelligence Authorization bill that says we'll keep doing more of the same. We'll conduct our intelligence the same way as we have in the past. We'll spend a little more money here, a little less money there, but we'll do the same things we've been doing and do them the same way. And Congress will continue to abdicate its oversight responsibility. That's unacceptable. Every member of this Congress supports the men and women of our intelligence community who put their lives on the line every day to keep our nation safe. I am a veteran of the intelligence community, having worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and I have the utmost respect for our intelligence professionals. However, we do a disservice to their hard work and personal sacrifice if we do not make sure that they have the tools and organizational structure they need to perform their duties successfully. We all know now that they work within a broken system plagued by miscommunication, lack of coordination, and poor organization. In my view, the worst thing we can do for them is to continue to prop up this broken system. When a ship is sinking, you can either hand out buckets or you can repair the holes. Congress should be in the job of repairing the intelligence community, not bailing it out. I want to be clear that our intelligence failures are not the fault of the men and women who work in the intelligence community. They are the result of complex, competitive and often redundant organizations that prevent the good work of our intelligence operatives from resulting in good, comprehensive products. Unfortunately, there is no indication in this bill that we have learned anything from our intelligence mistakes. Nearly 3 years ago, our intelligence services failed to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center, which took the lives of more than a hundred of my constituents in central New Jersey. An anthrax attack, which originated in my district and which targeted Members of Congress and other innocent citizens, still remains unsolved by the FBI. Today, our soldiers are risking their lives in Iraq after fighting a war to bottle-up weapons of mass destruction that our intelligence services said were there, but were not. The list of failures goes on. And yet, with this bill, Congress continues to fail to make any reforms of the intelligence community. In fact, there is no indication in this bill that Congress plans to exert any more oversight over the intelligence community to hold it accountable for its performance than it has in years past. That is inexcusable. In Committee, many of my colleagues and I offered a series of commonsense reforms that would have strengthened intelligence and strengthened oversight. They were all rejected. For example, one of the reforms included a provision that would have established a special ``red-team'' that would have been charged with challenging assumptions and poking holes in the so-called ``judgments'' of the Intelligence Community. In other words, the ``red-team'' would be our in-house devil's advocate. It would make Intelligence analyses like the National Intelligence Estimate stronger and less subject to misinterpretation or selective editing by providing policy-makers with a new ``red team'' section where all doubts, concerns, and alternative views are clearly laid out. It would help us make sure that we actually know what we think we know. There was no reason for this reform to be rejected. Finally, I was horrified that the Majority decided not to allow debate on Mr. Peterson's amendment, which would have fixed a major flaw in this bill. The bill only funds one-third of the critical counterterrorism funds the intelligence agencies say they need. The Peterson amendment would fund 100 percent of the counterterrorism funding needed and would do so now. Instead, the Majority plans to wait to ask for more money in a supplemental appropriation later this year. However, by funding our intelligence community by supplemental we in Congress will be curbing our own ability to oversee how those funds are spent. We need to give the intelligence community the financial support it needs, but it would be irresponsible for us to give them a blank check and not ask any questions. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it is my responsibility to make sure that this Congress both exerts the proper oversight over our intelligence community and that the community receives the proper directives and funding to be successful. I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill because it is structured in such a way that will only contribute to more intelligence failures in the future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the eve of her retirement to recognize Reverend Willie Mae Nanton for her role as a pastor and community activist. As Pastor of Cadwalader-Asbury United Methodist Church for the past 7 years, she has inspired and touched the lives of many. She is the first female pastor of the church in its 100-year history as well as the first female President of the Concerned Pastors and Ministers of Trenton and Vicinity. She has been an instrumental part of these organizations not only as a leader but also as a friend. Rev. Nanton also has been involved with other organizations in her community, serving as a Board member of the Economic Development Corporation, a Board member of Black United Methodist for Church Renewal, a past president of the Northwest District Board of Ordained Ministry, a Board member of Ecclesia Ecumenical Ministry, a past Board member of Big Brothers & Sisters, and a Board member of Leadership Trenton. Through these organizations, she has positively contributed to the Trenton community's development and the spiritual growth of its members. Over the years, Rev. Nanton has improved the quality of life of individuals in her community by being involved in Leadership Training Workshops, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling, Community Organization Development Planning and Management, Group Counseling, Interfaith Care Givers, and Meals on Wheels of Trenton. New Jersey is fortunate to have such a dedicated servant, and she deserves the utmost praise and recognition. She has earned our heartfelt appreciation for a noble career of public and private service, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in recognizing her achievements.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why I voted against the Rapid Acquisition Authority for Combat Emergencies Bill (H.R. 4323), when it was added to the suspension calendar for a vote earlier this week. During the past year, we have seen repeated examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in contracts awarded by the U.S. Defense Department to the Halliburton Corporation and other military contractors that have poorly served our troops and the American taxpayers. Not only do I lack confidence that such procurement sloth has stopped, those of us in Congress who have called for in-depth congressional investigations have been stone-walled. In light of this dismal track record, Congress should not open the door even wider and provide even greater authority for the Pentagon to award lucrative contracts to contractors without competition and with even less scrutiny and congressional oversight. Nevertheless, H.R. 4323 would waive existing safeguards against war profiteering and other contract abuses. Congress is already moving to authorize and appropriate up to $1.2 billion to provide additional equipment for our troops in every instance where critical shortages have been identified. That is one of the important reasons why I voted in favor of the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Bill, when the House passed it last month. Finally, the supporters of this bill claim it is needed to cut through existing, cumbersome Pentagon acquisition regulations to respond to urgent needs of our troops in combat emergencies. But there is mounting evidence to the contrary. I believe the equipment shortages among some of our troops in Iraq during the past year resulted from poor pre-war planning and serious miscalculations in the Pentagon by the architects of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Quite simply, U.S. Army war planners didn't issue enough purchase orders, before the invasion of Iraq was launched, to ensure that all of our troops on the ground in Iraq had what they needed during the conventional combat phase of this conflict. Those mistakes and the equipment shortages they caused became even more costly since President Bush announced the end of combat in Iraq on May 1, 2003, and the nature of the military threat changed and the armed insurgency expanded. This Congress should act to address those mistakes, not use them as an opportunity to hand out more no-bid contracts. I believe H.R. 4323 could actually make a bad situation worse.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Center For Scientific and Technical Assessment Act of 2005. I have introduced the creating legislation with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). The Center For Scientific and Technical Assessment would be a bicameral and bipartisan resource providing Congress with highly respected, impartial analysis and assessment of scientific and technical issues. The center would provide Congress with early warnings on technology's impacts both here and abroad. The center would assess the issues that impact current and future legislation encompassing medicine, telecommunications, computer sciences, agriculture, materials, transportation, defense, indeed every discipline and sector important to the United States and to our work here in Congress. It would undertake controversial subjects, examining them objectively and comprehensively for the Nation's benefit. The center would offer much needed sound principles to reap the benefits of technological change in industry, in the Federal Government, in the workplace, in our schools and look at the estimated economic and social impacts of rapid technological change. The center would enable Congress better to oversee Federal science and technology programs which now amount to over $130 billion. Finally, the center would help Congress better to understand complex technological issues by tailoring reports for legislative users. Today's legislative environment involves highly complex issues of science, engineering and technology. High-wage, advanced technology workforce growth is a prerequisite to a strong economy whose future is predicated on our continuing global dominance in science and technology. If the United States is to maintain and continue its leading role into the 21st Century, then Congress needs to recognize that the future is being shaped by new science and technology discoveries arising from our past investments in basic and applied research and their deployment into present and new industrial sectors. A well-informed Congress with the foresight to pass the right legislation must understand the effects of that technology on all sectors of our society and must understand the scientific aspects of all the legislation understand our consideration. Our Nation must exploit these new advances or prepare to be exploited ourselves by others. Given how technology underlies many aspects of our constituents' lives, concerns, and jobs, unbiased technical assessment is not a luxury but a necessity. Today Congress is deluged with facts, figures, opinions, and arguments from thousands of interested citizens. Congress does not need more facts and data on these issues of science and technology; it needs balanced analysis and synthesis that conclude with a framing of issues and extraction of knowledge and insight, a process beyond most Members of Congress and our immediate staffs. The Congressional Science Fellows program is a help in some respects. For example, Dr. Marti Sokolowski in my own office provides some of this, and there are some Fellows scattered around other offices around Capitol Hill, but it is not enough. For 2 decades, Congress could call upon the Office of Technology Assessment for nonpartisan scientific and technical advice. OTA published dozens of reports a year. Its work ran the gamut of subject matter. OTA brought science into the center of many congressional discussions. And at times OTA was a major factor in major pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, OTA closed its doors in September, 1995. However, many of its reports are still relevant and useful, but no more such reports are being produced. The loss of that technology assessment is great. Now we have no advice or sometimes haphazard review panels whose composition may tempt some to politicize science. Therefore, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I have introduced a bill to establish the Center for Scientific and Technology Assessment. We have done much research on the advantages and disadvantages of the former Office of Technology Assessment. We have looked at the recent successful technical assessment program prepared by the General Accounting Office. We have taken into the account the GAO's document and its recommendations. Finally, we have examined the study ``Science and Technology Advice for Congress'' and considered the lessons of that publication in constructing this bill. Our country will move into the 21st Century whether we in Congress are prepared or not. Congress will have at least the possibility of charting the course for our Nation with understanding of the applications of science and technology if we enact this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Child Nutrition Act. This bill is a step in the right direction of important reforms in federal child nutrition programs. I would like to thank Chairmen Boehner, and Castle and Ranking Members Miller and Woolsey for their hard work on the bill. I would also like to thank the Chairman for taking my amendment during the committee process eliminating the cost- accounting requirement for severe need breakfast programs. This paperwork problem was brought to my attention by the Director of the New Jersey Child Nutrition Programs, Kathy Kuser. Many states, such as New Jersey, Wisconsin and Illinois, are making significant efforts to improve their school breakfast participation rate, and reducing the paperwork requirements would help these efforts. Under current law, schools would qualify for severe-need breakfast assistance if at least 40 percent of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were free or reduced price. They calculate their cost per breakfast by prorating their labor costs, and figuring out their food, supplies and other costs associated with the school breakfast program. They have to save their receipts and calculations and submit them in order to get the severe-need reimbursement. Removing the cost-accounting requirement would be a significant paperwork reduction for the schools without significantly increasing cost for the government. I also want to commend the committee for including direct certification for children from food stamp households for free school meals. Many schools are not aware of this method to determine eligibility for free meals. Direct certification improves access to free school lunches and improves program integrity, according to a study done by Mathematica. I am also pleased to see a bill authorizing grants for ``farm-to- cafeteria'' projects, including nutrition education activities. These activities incorporate the participation of school children in farm and agricultural education projects and procure local foods from small- and medium-sized farms for school meals. The expansion of eligibility for Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for children in shelters from age 13 to 18 who live in domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters is a wonderful improvement to the previous child nutrition legislation. My constituents who participate in Mercer Street Friends, Anchor House, Triad House, Family Preservation Center (Homefront) and the Family Preservation House would benefit from this change to CACFP eligibility. These organizations depend on food donations to feed their clients who are nutritionally at risk and should be eligible for this important nutrition support program. Finally, I am pleased to see that the bill we are considering today has some positive improvements to the bill that first passed in March. The bill now authorizes grants to states for comprehensive nutrition education and physical activity programs. It also authorizes grants to schools for nutrition and physical activity projects. Today's bill provides training and technical assistance to schools to develop healthy school nutrition environments and local wellness policies. The bill also expands from 5 to 8 the number of states participating in the successful Fruit and Vegetable Pilot. Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs on the for their hard work. I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which will eliminate barriers to participation for low-income children and families and ensure greater access to these critical nutrition programs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment by our colleague from Texas indeed states a correct proposition that the detention and lawful interrogation of terrorists is fundamental to our national security. The key word, of course, is ``lawful.'' And perhaps the amendment could have been improved by spelling out more explicitly the importance of adhering to international convention, international law, international standards. There is no doubt that the gentleman from Texas has the admiration and appreciation of every Member here in this body for his service, and no one knows better than he, he has very personal and strong reasons for caring about the treatment of detainees and prisoners. And, in fact, I just wanted to underscore the point that I am sure the gentleman knows better than I, that the reason we do adhere to international standards, is for the protection of our own servicemen and women who may indeed become prisoners themselves. We certainly deplore the barbaric treatment of Americans, Koreans and others by the terrorists. We understand that non-state terrorists sometimes do not feel bound by the international standards, but the gentleman's legislation with an emphasis on the word ``lawful'' makes a good point.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would subscribe to the comments of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I would like to point out the problem with this amendment. It says it is the sense of Congress that the intelligence community should be revitalized by investing in its missions, people, and capabilities of the community. And, of course, that the efforts of the men and women of the intelligence community should be recognized and commended. This is commendable. This is what we would like to do. But if you read the findings of this, you find out what is really at play here. It is a gratuitous swipe at an administration that has long been out of office. If, in fact, we want to revitalize the community by reinvesting in its missions, we should be doing exactly what we have been talking about today, funding counterterrorism at something more than 30 percent of what the community, these people, say they need to carry out their missions and the capabilities that they need. Yes, we should revitalize by reinvesting. That is what we are asking to do today.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there are a few good features in this bill. For example, the bill supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research funding request and provides additional funding for enhanced training of State Department intelligence activities. Following my request last year when my amendments with regard to foreign language instruction were rejected and the leadership assured me that we would take care of it this year, I worked closely with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on a number of important provisions. I am pleased to acknowledge the work that he did. Nearly $29 million of the $33 million in language programs that we find in this bill were what I had specifically recommended or even written. They will do a number of things to improve our proficiency in critical languages. But I am very disappointed in a number of failures. There was a commonsense amendment I offered to provide foreign language instruction for students of science and engineering at American universities. It was a simple idea. We need it. It was voted down on party lines. But the fundamental problem, and this is what we keep coming back to today, all the world knows that there have been some major intelligence failures. We read it in the world's press. In fact, too often we read about these things in the world's press a day or two after critical people have come before our committee and failed to tell us what we need to know in order to exert oversight. The reason we are talking about the underfunding here is because the approach that the administration is taking, the approach that the leadership here is endorsing is funding by supplemental appropriations. It removes the oversight process. A large fraction of the funding for counterterrorism is now removed from the oversight process, and it compromises the work of this committee, it compromises the work of this Congress, and it results in a fundamentally flawed authorization bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The American public, the citizens of America, are looking to us, to the Congress, to provide oversight over the intelligence community. My colleague, the gentleman from California, said that our committee has never been denied a hearing that we wanted. That may be true if one defines ``hearing'' very broadly. Yes, members of the intelligence community from the various agencies have come to meet with us; but we never learned, for example, that Mr. Rumsfeld actually approved ghost detainees, detainees who would be kept out of the system. We never really got level answers about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is a long, long list of things that we have been denied because we just did not ask exactly the right question. The debate this morning is not about how many billions of dollars precisely will be added to the counterterrorism budget; it is whether they are going to present the budget to us in such a way that it is impossible for the committee to exercise oversight. That is what is at issue. By funding these programs through supplemental appropriations rather than through the normal appropriations process with authorization oversight, they dodge responsibility. They dodge the oversight. That is what is at stake here today. That is what this rule is denying, the American public the oversight that they expect, that they need for our national security, denying that that will be carried out by the committee. So we are talking about a much more fundamental, longer-term issue; and for that reason, this rule is very flawed and should be opposed.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Simmons amendment. To set the record straight, there is on this side an alumnus of the intelligence community. I also used to work in the intelligence community, and I can assure my colleagues that the agencies make much less use of the wealth of open-source information than they could. Open sources mean more than searching the Internet for printed material or extending the reach of the foreign broadcast information service. There are now commercial companies with high-quality imagery from satellites. There is mature technology for using commercial radio and television broadcasts as illumination sources to passively detect and track aircraft. These techniques could be used to augment air surveillance, for example. The Internet, as we are all aware, could be exploited for many intelligence purposes and so on. There is much we could do. Last year, I sponsored in this very authorization bill a provision that required the intelligence community to report to us on how new approaches of open-source intelligence would be incorporated into intelligence products. Although that report is, I am told, in final coordination now, we still have not received it. So I think it is appropriate to put this language into the bill, not just report language, so that the intelligence community will make full use of open-source information. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague once again this evening for his statement and offer strong support for the Simmons amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). This is much needed legislation, and I applaud the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Connecticut for putting it forward. It really makes little sense for airport security to screen 100 percent of the carry-on baggage to the point of removing nail clippers and yet not screen all the cargo and baggage that is loaded into the belly of a plane. This amendment is really much needed and should be passed with strong bipartisan support, should also be implemented with strong financial support from the Federal Government. My question for the gentleman from Massachusetts is, does he believe that down the road we can ensure that cargo loaded onto cargo planes will also be screened?

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.