Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the rededication of the Lamington Black Cemetery located in Somerset County, New Jersey and to honor those responsible for undertaking this reclamation effort. Until a year ago, this rich history of New Jersey's African-American heritage was a hidden treasure lost among snarled tree roots and overgrown vegetation. But thanks to the efforts of many concerned citizens, the ``old slave cemetery'', its nearly three centuries of history and more than 100 graves--both marked and unmarked--have been preserved and rededicated. For more than a year, neighbors and friends, brothers and coworkers, pastors and congregants have come together to rebuild and reclaim this small one acre cemetery. They have donated their time, talents and treasures to restore the peace and dignity those resting in this hallowed ground deserve. At this time in our Nation's history, when we struggle to find solace and meaning in the acts of terror against us, we can gain strength and perspective from those buried in the Lamington Black Cemetery and those working to preserve our heritage. Theirs is a story of slavery, of war, and of freedom. Most importantly though, they are a genuine example of the dignity of human life, the strength of community and the pride of America. Mr. Speaker, again, I celebrate this rededication and honor those who are buried and those who have worked so diligently to bring their memories back to life. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this invaluable contribution to our community and New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday in my congressional district, I had the honor along with 4,000 students, parents, dignitaries, and local residents to gather in front of historical Nassau Hall to witness Dr. Shirley Tilghman take the office as the 19th President of Princeton University. Dr. Tilghman is highly qualified to head Princeton University. She is a world-renowned biology researcher, a beloved teacher, and a leader of vision. In her inaugural address, Dr. Tilghman spoke of the freedom to pursue ideas as an essential investment in the strength of our national character, our culture, and our material lives. Now more than ever in America, we need institutions of higher education to perform this critical function. At this time of great national introspection and examination, the university and its defense of enduring values are more relevant than ever. This relevance resounded clearly in Dr. Tilghman's address. It is evident to me that this prestigious university has a president very worthy to join the sequence of distinguished scholars who have led it over the past few centuries. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the full text of Dr. Tilghman's address. Discovery and Discourse, Leadership and Service: The Role of the Academy in Times of Crisis Faculty, students, staff, trustees, alumni and neighbors of Princeton University, distinguished guests, family and friends: It is a deep honor for me to assume the office of 19th President of this great university. I accept with both eagerness and humility, knowing full well that I follow in the footsteps of predecessors who have provided Princeton with extraordinary leadership over the past century. Presidents Goheen, Bowen and Shapiro, all of whom are present to witness this beginning of a new presidency, have provided us with a legacy that is envied in all quarters of higher education, a legacy that we will cherish and protect, but also one that we will use as a strong foundation on which to build our future. Our vision of that future was forever changed by the tragic events of September 11 at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. In the aftermath of those events, I modified the address that I had been writing in order to speak with you about what is foremost on my mind. President Bush, in his address to a joint session of Congress last week, declared war on international terrorism, a war whose form and outcome are difficult to imagine. Given the enormous challenges and the uncertainty that lie ahead, what is the proper role of the academy during this crisis and in the national debate we are sure to have? How can we contribute as this great country seeks the honorable path to worldwide justice and to peace? Today the academy holds a highly privileged place in American society because of a long-standing national consensus about the value of education. Another of my predecessors, President Harold Dodds, said in his inaugural address in 1933 that ``No country spends money for education, public and private, so lavishly as does the United States. Americans have an almost childlike in what formal education can do for them.'' That faith is base don a conviction that the vitality of the United States, its creative and diverse cultural life, its staggeringly inventive economy, its national security and the robustness of its democratic institutions owe much to the quality of its institutions of higher education. The spirit of democracy is now reflected more than ever in our education system, with opportunities open to students of all stripes, from 18-year-old freshmen to senior citizens; from students given every imaginable advantage by their parents to students who spent their childhoods living on the streets; from the New Jersey-born to students from around the globe; from students who were ignited by learning from the first day of primary school to high school drop outs who came to formal education through the school of hard knocks. If you will forgive a biologist the impulse to use a scientific metaphor, the American education landscape is like a complex ecosystem, full of varied niches in which a rich diversity of organisms grow and thrive. Our society's confidence in its institutions of higher education is expressed through the generous investments of the federal and state governments in basic and applied research, investments that wisely couple support for research with support for graduate education. It is also expressed through federal and state investments that subsidize the cost of higher education for those who cannot afford to pay, investments by private foundations and charities who see colleges and universities as the best routes for achieving their strategic goals, and investments by individuals and by the private sector, who see universities as the incubators of future health and prosperity. In return for this broad support, society rightfully expects certain things from us. It expects the generation of new ideas and the discovery of new knowledge, the exploration of complex issues in an open and collegial manner and the preparation of the next generation of citizens and leaders. In times of trouble, it is especially important that we live up to these expectations. The medieval image of the university as an ivory tower, with scholars turned inward in solitary contemplation, immunized from the cares of the day, is an image that has been superseded by the modern university constructed not of ivory, but of a highly porous material, one that allows free diffusion in both directions. The academy is of the world, not apart from it. Its ideals, crafted over many generations, are meant to suffuse the national consciousness. Its scholars and teachers are meant to move in and out of the academy in pursuit of opportunities to use their expertise in public service, in pursuit of creative work that will give us illumination and insight and in pursuit of ways to turn laboratory discoveries into useful things. Our students engage the world with a strong sense of civic responsibility, and when they graduate they become alumni who do the same. This is as it should be. Yet the complex interplay between society and the academy also creates a tension, because the search for new ideas and knowledge is not and cannot be motivated by utilitarian concerns. Rather it depends on the ability to think in new and creative ways, to challenge prevailing orthodoxies, to depart from the status quo. We must continually strive to preserve the freedom of our students and our scholars to pursue ideas that conflict with what we believe or what we would like to believe, and to explore deep problems whose solutions have no apparent applications. This is not a privilege we grant to a handful of pampered intellectuals; rather it is a defining feature of our society and an essential investment in the continuing strength of our character, our culture, our ideas and our material lives. When the Nobel laureate John Nash developed the mathematical concepts underlying non-cooperative game theory as a graduate student at Princeton, he could not foresee that those concepts would be used today to analyze election strategies and the causes of war and to make predictions about how people will act. When Professor of Molecular Biology Eric Wieschaus set out as a young scientist to identify genes that pattern the body plan of the fruit fly embryo, he could not know that he would identify genes that play a central role in the development of human cancer. We have learned that we cannot predict with any accuracy how discoveries and scholarship will influence future generations. We also have learned that it is unwise to search only in predictable places, for new knowledge often depends upon preparing fertile ground in obscure places where serendipity and good luck, as well as deep intelligence, can sprout. Freedom of inquiry, which is one of our most cherished organizing principles, is not just a moral imperative, it is a practical necessity. Just as we have an obligation to search widely for knowledge, so we also have an obligation to insure that the scholarly work of the academy is widely disseminated, so that others can correct it when necessary, or build on it, or use it to make better decisions, develop better products or construct better plans. In the days ahead, I hope that our country's decision makers will draw on the knowledge that resides on our campuses, on historians who can inform the present through deep understanding of the past, philosophers who can provide frameworks for working through issues of right and wrong, economists whose insights can help to get the economy back on track, engineers who know how to build safer buildings, scientists who can analyze our vulnerabilities to future attack and develop strategies for reducing those vulnerabilities, and scholars in many fields who can help them understand the motivations of those who would commit acts of terrorism here and throughout the world. American universities have been granted broad latitude not only to disseminate knowledge, but to be the home of free exchange of ideas, where even the rights of those who express views repugnant to the majority are vigorously protected. Defending academic freedom of speech is not particularly difficult in times of peace and prosperity. It is in times of national crisis that our true commitment to freedom of speech and thought is tested. History will judge us in the weeks and months ahead by our capacity to sustain civil discourse in the face of deep disagreement, for we are certain to disagree with one another. We will disagree about how best to hold accountable those responsible for the attacks of September 11. We will disagree about how broadly the blame should be shared. We will disagree about the ways in which nationalism and religion can be perverted into fanaticism. We will disagree about whether a just retribution can be achieved if it leads to the deaths of more innocent victims. We will disagree about the political and tactical decisions that our government will make, both in achieving retribution and in seeking to protect against similar attacks in the future. We will disagree about how and when to wage war and how best to achieve a real and lasting peace. The conversations we will have on our campuses are not intended to reach a conformity of view, a bland regression to the mean. Rather we aim to come to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the complexity of human affairs and of the implications of the choices we make. Perhaps, if we are very dedicated, we will find the wisdom to see an honorable, yet effective, path to a world in which terrorism is a thing of the past. With generosity of spirit and mutual respect, we must listen carefully to one another, and speak with our minds and our hearts, guided by the principles we hold dear. By conducting difficult discussions without prejudice or anger, by standing together for tolerance, civil liberties and the right to dissent, by holding firm to core principles of justice and freedom and human dignity, this university will serve our country well. By so doing, we will be true patriots. Let me now turn to the third obligation that we have to society: the education of the next generation of citizens and leaders. Princeton's view of what constitutes a liberal arts education was expressed well by Woodrow Wilson, our 13th President, whose eloquent words I read at Opening Exercises: ``What we should seek to impart in our colleges, therefore, is not so much learning itself as the spirit of learning. It consists in the power to distinguish good reasoning from bad, in the power to digest and interpret evidence, in the habit of catholic observation and a preference for the non partisan point of view, in an addiction to clear and logical processes of thought and yet an instinctive desire to interpret rather than to stick to the letter of reasoning, in a taste for knowledge and a deep respect for the integrity of human mind.'' Wilson, and the presidents who followed him, rejected the narrow idea of a liberal arts education as preparation for a profession. While understanding the importance of professional education, they made it clear that at Princeton we should first and foremost cultivate the qualities of thought and discernment in our students, in the belief that this will be most conducive to the health of our society. Thus we distinguish between the acquisition of information, something that is essential for professional training, and the development of habits of mind that can be applied in any profession. Consequently we celebrate when the classics scholar goes to medical school, the physicist becomes a member of Congress, or the historian teaches primary school. If we do our job well as educators, each of our students will take from a Princeton education a respect and appreciation for ideas and values, intellectual openness and rigor, practice in civil discourse and a sense of civic responsibility. During these troubled times, our students and our alumni will be called upon to exercise these qualities in their professions, their communities and their daily lives. By so doing, and through their leadership, their vision and their courage, they will help to fulfill Princeton's obligation to society and bring true meaning to our motto, ``Princeton in the nation's service and in the service of all nations.'' Thank you.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is modeled after the Food Biotechnology Information Act, the legislation that I introduced in the 106th Congress and again this year. The point of the bill and this amendment is to give consumers the best information possible so they can make informed choices about the food they eat. There is much uncertainty and much misinformation about biotechnology and food engineering. Certainly we need to be careful with biotechnology, as we need to be careful with all new and emerging technologies. With a tool this powerful, there are possibilities of damage and misuse. But as a scientist, I believe the use of biotechnology can provide greater yields of nutritionally enhanced foods with less land used and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides. That is to say, biotechnology can be a real benefit to the consumer and the environment. Biotechnology applications are already reviewed and controlled by the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other agencies. My amendment deals with public information. I think the government has a responsibility to provide clear, science-based, evidence-based public information that helps consumers, policymakers, and others make informed choices about foods. I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for including part of my legislation, the Food Biotechnology Information Act in this bill. It deals with sound scientific research, and I thank them for doing that. Mr. Chairman, I would like to complete this by including this information on this amendment on public information. It is a straightforward amendment that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake an information campaign to provide scientifically based information to consumers to allow them to understand the benefits and indications of this new technology for their food choices.

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

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize retiring Police Chief Frank J. Cox of West Windsor Township, New Jersey and of his thirty- nine year long commitment to serving the people of New Jersey as a distinguished law enforcement officer. A native of Princeton, New Jersey, Frank Cox first served on the Princeton Township Police Department from 1962 to 1968 before joining Chief Frank Maquire to create the West Windsor Township Police Department in 1968, becoming Chief in January 1980. During his tenure with West Windsor Township's police department, Chief Cox was nominated and attended the 109th Session of the FBI National Academy and then served as the President of the New Jersey Chapter of the FBI National Academy. Additionally, he served as President of the Mercer County Chiefs of Police Association as well as serving on the executive board for the past fifteen years. Because of his tremendous abilities, Chief Cox was even called upon to serve as the Interim Business Administrator of West Windsor Township from June 2000 to September 2001. Chief Cox's stalwart leadership for the past half century serves as an enduring example of unending commitment and selfless public service. It has been a pleasure working with him in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Chief Frank Cox on his many years of service to the people of West Windsor Township and ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his invaluable contributions to our community and New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stump/ Skelton amendment. As our Nation is working to deal with the tremendous needs of our armed forces in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, this is one amendment that is particularly important. The Stump/Skelton bipartisan amendment cuts $400 million from the President's request for National Missile Defense programs, and transfers these funds to intelligence and counter-terrorism initiatives. The Stump/Skelton amendment represents a consensus, compromise position that all of us should support. As a Nation, there are many lessons to be learned from the recent attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. One of the things that is underscored by the events of September 11 is how careful we must be about where we put our defense dollars and the priorities that we as a nation fund in our defense budget. The pursuit of a National Missile Defense is an expensive, unproven and destabilizing policy that should be rejected. There are so many more important needs to fund in our defense budget. While this amendment does not eliminate all of the funds the President has requested for a National Missile Defense system, it does make important reductions in that account and important increases in areas where we clearly need to make investments, particularly in our intelligence and counter intelligence efforts. The National Missile Defense as proposed would not be effective. It would be costly to deploy and easily circumvented. It could be confused with decoys. It could be bypassed with suitcase bombs and pickup trucks and sea-launched missiles or need I say it, wayward airlines. It would be billions of dollars down the drain. But it is not just a diversion of precious resources that we are told are not available for health care, for smaller class sizes, for modern school facilities, for securing open space or for taking care of America's veterans. It is worse than a waste. Simple strategic analysis will tell us that provocative yet permeable defenses are destabilizing and lead to reduced security. The U.S. has not been able to develop a workable missile defense system after 40 years of trying and spending $108 billion. Clearly this money is better spent in supporting up our intelligence and counter intelligence efforts. I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, America has found a hero in Todd Beamer, one of the passengers on the hijacked Flight 93 who gave their lives to deny the vicious hijackers their deadly mission. We all mourn the loss of Todd Beamer and the others on that flight and our hearts and prayers go out to Lisa Beamer, their two fine children, and to all the other families of the people on that plane. We also hold up the memory of Mr. Beamer as one who represents what is good about America. For two centuries observers around the world from Alexis de Toqueville to Winston Churchill, have spoken about the marvelous ability of Americans to rise to meet a challenging situation, the ability of individual Americans to step from their ordinary lives to do extraordinary things. I attended the memorial service for Todd Beamer at the church in Plainsboro, New Jersey where the Beamer family worships. From the remembrances delivered lovingly by friends and family I learned a lot about the character of this national hero. He was an outstanding athlete who led and inspired his teammates. He was a fine businessman who stood out in a national company. He was an involved and loving father who was looking forward to the upcoming birth of his third child. Especially, I learned that he was a man of deep religious faith, a faith that allowed him to look past death to act so courageously on board Flight 93. We all believe that band of passengers who fought the hijackers-- Todd's father called them freedom fighers--saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives that would have been taken if that plane has made its fiery descent into the hijackers' intended target. It is worth noting that none of those people whose lives were saved know who they are. We will never know. But all Americans can be grateful and can raise up the example of the heroes on that flight. Their memory reminds us that this is not the last time America will need heroes. The survival of American ideals depends day in and day out on ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things, courageous things. The opportunity comes to every American to do courageous things. Most Americans will never have to face down an armed hijacker, but may have the opportunity in their neighborhoods or among their friends to face down bigotry, intolerance, or injustice. The memory of people like Todd Beamer helps us meet those challenges.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we passed H.R. 1900, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Authorization Act, which I support and am pleased to have a hand in shaping. According to government statistics, juveniles accounted for 17% of all arrests and 16% of all violent crime arrests in 1999. Moreover, in that same year, 2.5 million children under the age of 18 were arrested. We must not be complacent about these figures. Too many young people get involved in criminal activity, and we must do all we can to prevent juveniles from engaging in such activities. H.R. 1900 is a bipartisan effort to improve the juvenile justice system and give maximum flexibility to states and local communities in preventing and reducing juvenile crime. I applaud Representative Greenwood and Representative Scott for putting together a bill that has garnered such wide bipartisan support. I am particularly pleased, that because of an amendment I successfully offered in committee, this bill keeps research and statistical analysis within the National Institute of Juvenile Justice. It is imperative that we not lose our focus on early prevention and this is best accomplished by committing this work to a separate agency. I am also pleased that an amendment Representative McCarthy and I offered in committee requiring a study be conducted on gun violence- related injuries and deaths by youth in schools and communities was later incorporated in this bill as well. This study will focus on the relationship between victims and violent youth; the criminal act and location; and the types of weapons being used. By learning the source of the problem, we can find and develop ways to prevent future violence. There is much more that we can do to prevent juvenile crime. However, this bill represents a good start and I am happy to support it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this bill should not be coming up now. It is not ready. It does not deal with the fundamental problem. Yes, there is an urgent need to strengthen the airline industry. We need to do this in a bipartisan way. We need to do it urgently. There is much in this bill, $15 billion in direct aid and loan guarantees, and that is good. You will hear about perspective liability and retrospective liability. I will not talk about that. It does not include, however, anything, about the needs of working families--the baggage handlers, the flight attendants, the pilots, the agents, the clerks--unless you consider executive salary packages of $13 million as dealing with the needs of working families. But let us face facts. What is the real problem now? People are not flying. Why are they not flying? They are concerned about airline security. This bill has two sentences about airline security. One sentence says that last week we said we were going to do something. The other sentence says that in the future we are going to do something. If we want to revitalize the airline industry, we have to get people back in the planes. How are we going to get them back in the planes? Certainly we cannot do it unless we reassure them about the security of the airlines. The fundamental problem we are facing right now is people are not flying. Yes, we have an urgent need. We should stay here this weekend, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, if necessary, and get it right. This is an important industry. It is critical to all other aspects of our society. We should do it, and we should take the time to do it right.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise the members of the State of New Jersey Office of Emergency Management's Urban Search and Rescue Team (NJTF-1), who responded to the call for assistance in New York City after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. I had the privilege of spending time with their members who have created a tent city at the Jacob Javitz Convention Center. They are among the best-trained rescue personnel anywhere, and no one works harder than they do. They, along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and others, have risen to the challenge of last week's tragedy. Within hours after the attack on the World Trade Center, the New Jersey Urban Search and Rescue Team were in New York City volunteering to assist in the immediate search for victims. The team stayed in New York City for nine days, away from their families, and in harm's way, in order to help those in need. Tomorrow, they return to their homes and jobs in New Jersey. First NJTF-1 will stop at their deployment center in Lakehurst where their families and friends will celebrate their service to their fellow citizens. On behalf of all of New Jersey's residents, I am proud of these dedicated men and women and proud they serve not only the people of New Jersey, but all the people of the United States. They, like so many of New Jersey's fire, police, and emergency medical technicians, deserve our praise and our thanks for their efforts in Manhattan. They have served as a bright light of hope in our days of darkness and are a testament to the unyielding will of the American people and the strength of our democracy. I urge all my colleagues in the House to join me in honoring them for their dedication and their heroism.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, today, even as we bind the wounds as thousands of brave Americans still work to free those who are trapped, to care for those who are injured, to recover those who are lost, Congress, on behalf of our good and brave people, must act. Mr. Speaker, this is the time for our Nation to lead the world in the fight against terror, to strike a blow for future generations for all people against those who would try to achieve their goals through violence, terror, and bloodshed. While these cowardly acts have shaken buildings, they cannot shake the strong foundations of our nation's, our peoples' spirit, our great democracy. Today we show that we are Americans united, united for our foes to see and for our friends to see. Today we show the world that the manner in which we respond illustrates what makes America great and shows America to be good. I join with all of my colleagues in Congress in expressing our Nation's sorrow and outrage against this evil event; even more, our firm resolve to root out terrorism. It will require a long, hard effort, and a full measure of wisdom and courage. Those cowards failed. Our freedom is not our vulnerability, it is our greatest strength.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today all across America the hearts and prayers of our people are with the victims, their families, the rescue and medical workers, our friends and neighbors. These cowardly acts may have shaken buildings, but they cannot shake the foundation of our Nation, our freedom, our people's spirit, our great democracy. I join with my colleagues here in Congress in expressing our Nation's sorrow and outrage at these evil attacks. More than that, we join together in firm resolve to find those responsible and to bring them to justice, and resolve to prevent such acts in the future. Mr. Speaker, this is a reminder that just as no person is an island, America is not an island. No declaration of resolve here, no fancy airport security technology, no air marshal on board planes, no military action can by itself root out terrorism without international cooperation. As the champions of freedom in the world, we will reach out not only to governments around the world, but to the people around the world who stand with us.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as Americans, one of the many things that we can be thankful for is the high quality of medical care. American technology, physicians, and pharmaceutical companies are often leaders in the development of new and improved healthcare equipment and techniques. But even the most cutting-edge technologies, the best doctors and nurses, and the finest facilities cannot save the life of a person in need of a blood transfusion. A child with cancer, a mother who was in a car accident, or a grandfather who needs an emergency operation--any of these individuals could be saved by a simple gift of blood. Without this vital gift, which I must add is in great demand, many of our patients would not survive. Yet consider the following: Only five percent of people who are able to donate blood do so on a regular basis. And, although donated blood can be stored for up to six weeks, it usually is used within ten days because the demand is so great. Every one of us knows someone--a family member, a friend, a loved one--who has needed, and received a blood transfusion at some point. But there are so many more who are in danger of not receiving the help they need. This is why it is so vital that we make people aware of the importance of donating blood. I take this responsibility very seriously and give blood on a regular basis. Yet, I am only one person. We need to find ways to encourage more. Today, we can pass a resolution, which expresses the sense of the House that we establish a summer emergency blood donor season to encourage eligible donors. I strongly support this resolution. We must ensure that everyone who is able to give blood does so. It is perhaps the most important gift we can give.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, substance abuse is one of our Nation's most pervasive problems. It is a disease that does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, socioeconomic status, race or creed. And while we tend to stereotype drug abuse as an urban problem, the steadily growing number of heroin and methamphetamine addicts in rural villages and suburban towns shows that is simply not the case. We have nearly 15 million drug users in this country, 4 million of whom are hard-core addicts. We all know someone--a family member, neighbor, colleague or friend--who has become addicted to drugs or alcohol although we may be unaware. And we are all affected by the undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime--an overwhelming 80 percent of the 2 million men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. All of this comes at a hefty price. Drug abuse and addiction cost this Nation $110 billion in law enforcement and other criminal justice expenses, medical bills, lost earnings and other costs each year. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and for the spread of a number of communicable diseases, including AIDS and Hepatitis C. And a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) shows that 7 out of 10 cases of child abuse and neglect are caused or exacerbated by substance abuse and addiction. Another CASA study recently revealed that for each dollar that States spend on substance-abuse related programs, 96 cents goes to dealing with the consequences of substance abuse and only 4 cents to preventing and treating it. Investing more in prevention and treatment is cost- effective because it will decrease much of the street crime, child abuse, domestic violence, and other social ills that can result from substance abuse. If we can get kids through age 21 without smoking, abusing alcohol, or using drugs, they are unlikely to have a substance abuse problem in the future. But there are still those who shrug their shoulders and say ``kids are kids--they are going to experiment.'' Others find the thought of keeping kids drug-free too daunting a task, and they give up too soon. But the truth is that we are learning more and more about drug prevention as researchers isolate the so-called ``risk'' and ``protective'' factors for drug use. In other words, we now know that if a child has low self-esteem or emotional problems; has a substance abuser for a parent; is a victim of child abuse; or is exposed to pro- drug media messages, that child is at a higher risk of smoking, drinking and using illegal drugs. But the good news is that we are also learning what decreases a child's risk of substance abuse. The Drug Free Communities program allows coalitions to put prevention research into action in cities and towns nationwide by funding initiatives tailored to a community's individual needs. It currently funds more than 300 community coalitions across the country that work to reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. And they are making a difference, which is just one of the reasons that I am proud to support this important bill reauthorizing the program. Drug abuse plagues the entire community. We all feel the consequences--crime, homelessness, domestic violence, child abuse, despair--and we all need to do something about it. Prevention messages must come from all sectors of the community, from a number of different voices. Coalitions bring those groups together, give them information they need, help develop programs that work, and nurture them to success. I believe that the Drug Free Communities program is a powerful prevention initiative and I urge my colleagues to support its reauthorization.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, my wife is a general practice physician. It is kitchen table conversation for us to talk about the change in recent years in the doctor-patient relationship and what has made it so difficult to practice medicine. Well, the Ganske-Dingell bill addresses that. This hurried bill, this amendment that was thrown together in the middle of the night last night, is no help. It is not a compromise. It puts HMOs in a unique privileged position in American law, and that is why the AMA, the New Jersey Medical Society, patients groups and individual doctors and patients all across America understand that we should go with the Dingell-Ganske approach to patient protection so that we can restore the doctor-patient relationship.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, in a bill that has the American taxpayers assuming the risk for drilling in marginal areas by subsidizing the oil companies, the centerpiece of this bill, opening up the Arctic Refuge for drilling, represents all that is wrong with this bill. We cannot turn this environmental jewel into an industrial complex. For what? Even if we had the oil from the Arctic Reserve, we would still be importing most of our oil from abroad unless we conserve and use our energy efficiently. This is not a bill that is worthy of the 21st century. I urge Members to support the Markey amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1858, the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act and H.R. 100, the National Science Education Act. As a scientist and former teacher, I know that success in this information age depends not just on how well we educate our children, but on how well we educate them in math and science specifically. Yet, one of the most difficult challenges we face today is getting well-trained and qualified science and math teachers in every classroom. We need to recruit better teachers and provide additional training to the ones we have. Teachers, like most professionals, need opportunities for continuous development. Education is not static. Our needs and the requirements of our teachers are constantly changing as we gain a better understanding of how our children learn and as we gain new technologies. Just think of how computers have changed the way we teach and learn. Our methodologies must change as well. I was fortunate enough to serve on the Glenn Commission, which sought ways to improve the teaching of math and science. One of the major recommendations that came out of our report, Before It's Too Late, was to provide for an ongoing system of professional development of our teachers. I am pleased to see that these bills will provide grants to improve the professional development of our current teachers. Just as the Glenn Commission recommended, H.R. 1858 also addresses ways to recruit new and talented teachers into the field by providing scholarships for math and science majors who go into teaching, funds to provide master teachers, and other initiatives to improve the quality of our math and science instructors. I am also pleased to see that H.R. 1858 provides opportunities for traditionally underrepresented groups to excel in math and science related fields. According to a report by the Congressional Commission on the advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development, women, minorities, and persons with disabilities still eschew technical occupations. They are severely underrepresented in scientific disciplines and while they represent the fastest growing segment of the workforce, they are not going into technical careers at an appreciable rate. If we are to meet the future demand for a highly skilled workforce, we must find ways to tap into these groups. This bill would also address this important issue. It contains programs and language specifically geared towards the recruitment and retention of qualified individuals from these underrepresented groups. Yet we need to do more. If we are going to improve the recruitment and retention of our teachers, it is important we hear from the people this affects most--our teachers. I am concerned that this bill does not do enough to include the participation of teachers. Rather than giving sole authority to the Director of NSF, to ensure teachers' voices are heard, it is important that the director work in collaboration with teachers. I hope as this bill continues to move through Congress, we can incorporate language that will ensure our teachers' voices are heard. Nevertheless, I support the goals of this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for their work in producing a bipartisan bill that really should make a difference in our schools. Mr. Speaker, as we come to conference with the other body, there are some things that I think are in consideration here; and we must make sure they come out in the final version. First of all, I want to make sure that some of the discussions that we have had in committee about authorized use of funds comes out. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and I in committee were able to see that of the money that is spent, that local schools have the option of spending it on training teachers, providing the professional development on math and science teaching in particular, which can be as much as 20 percent of the funding under title II. I hope that that will be preserved in conference. I also hope that we can preserve the agreement that we had in committee that under the President's reading initiative in title I, an accepted use of funds is for books. If we are going to have a literacy program, it does make sense that books would be covered as an authorized use of funds. Similarly, in title IV, I would hope that we can see that instruments, musical instruments, are included as appropriate use of funds in music programs. Overall, I hope we would see that we pay special attention to the professional development for math and science teachers. Furthermore, something that is coming from the other body that I hope will be preserved in conference is legislation, a part of the bill, that will ensure that parents have a right to know at least 72 hours in advance of the use of pesticides, dangerous chemicals, in their schools, in their children's schools. Of course, as others before me have said, I hope out of conference we will come with a real dedication to give more than words to education for children with disabilities under the IDEA program.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. Just as everyone here today, I view the American flag with a special reverence, and I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol. When I was in school, not only did we pledge allegiance to the flag every morning, but we were also honored to be selected to raise or lower the flag in front of my school. Each one of us took on this task with the utmost seriousness and respect. I believe that we should still be teaching young people to respect the flag and what it represents. Our Constitution is the document that provides the basis for our great country. For two centuries and a decade, the Constitution--the greatest invention of humans--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. It doesn't fly majestically in front of government buildings. We do not pledge allegiance to it each day. Yet, it is the source of our freedom. It tells us that we are free to assemble peacefully. We are free to petition our government; we are free to worship without interference; free from unlawful search and seizure; and free to choose our leaders. It secures the right and means of voting. It is these freedoms that define what it is to be an American. In its more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times. With the exception of the Eighteenth Amendment, which was later repealed, these amendments have reaffirmed and expanded individual freedoms and the specific mechanisms that allow our self-government to function. This Resolution before us today would not perfect the operation of our self-government. It would not expand our citizen's rights. Proponents of this constitutional amendment argue that we need to respect our flag. I believe that the vast majority of Americans already respect our flag. The issue before us is whether our Constitution should be amended so that the Federal Government can prosecute the handful of Americans who show contempt for the flag. To quote James Madison, is this a ``great and extraordinary occasion'' justifying the use of a constitutional amendment? The answer is no; this is not such an occasion. I oppose this amendment because I believe that while attempting to preserve the symbol of the freedoms we enjoy in this country, it actually would harm the substance of these freedoms.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Congress does have an obligation to help Americans who cannot afford the prescription drugs that they need, and seniors deserve a voluntary universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We can all agree on that. But making it easier to bring counterfeit substandard medicines into the United States is not the way to help seniors get these medications, not the way to help families. The Sanders amendment is a step backward. The FDA and the Customs Service have a huge challenge keeping counterfeit drugs out of this country. Consumers in New Jersey and California and Kansas can take prescription medicines today with the certain knowledge that they are putting safe, tested, clean medicines into their bodies. It is not just agencies like the Customs Service that oppose this, it is also patients' groups, like the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the ALS Foundation. They all strongly oppose it. It is simply not the way to provide seniors with affordable prescription drugs. It would undermine confidence that doctors and patients have in their ability to make informed decisions about patient care. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as representatives of the American people, with this resolution we will today urge the People's Republic of China, in the strongest possible terms, to release Li Shoamin, a naturalized American citizen, and I might add a constituent of mine from New Jersey, from my congressional district, from custody of the Beijing State Security Bureau, where he has been detained since February of this year. Our actions today are also intended to call attention to the other scholars of Chinese ancestry who are being illegally detained in China. I have met personally on three occasions with Liu Yingli, Mr. Li Shaomin's wife and their charming young daughter, Diana. When one meets with them and talks with them and sees the pain and uncertainty that they are experiencing over the detainment of their husband and father, it is impossible not to realize how important this legislation is. I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), in presenting this legislation and urging its passage. Li Shaomin received his Ph.D. in sociology from Princeton a decade and a half ago. He is a respected and published scholar in demography, has contributed greatly to research focused on strategic management and marketing. On February 25, Dr. Li, who over the years has traveled frequently to Beijing and other parts of China, was traveling across the border to visit a friend. Upon crossing, Dr. Li was detained by state security officials who claimed he had been, well, we do not know. They now say he was engaged in espionage. The detention of Dr. Li is just another in a string of a half dozen arrests by Chinese authorities of academics who have connections with China. We have a responsibility to let the Chinese Government know that the United States and the world are aware of these actions, are watching closely, and find this sort of behavior unacceptable. The charges brought against Dr. Li are vague and unsubstantiated. The fact that Dr. Li is the son of a prominent Chinese dissident, Li Honglin, who now resides in Hong Kong, I think is a significant point. It raises extremely serious questions of political motivation for the Chinese detainment of Dr. Li. Since his detention, Dr. Li's detention, Chinese authorities have refused to release any information or describe any so-called evidence that has surfaced against Dr. Li. Disturbingly, the Chinese authorities also failed to inform Dr. Li's wife directly about the detention until May 17, when she was informed by the state security ministry via telephone that her husband was arrested and charged with espionage. U.S. consular officials have not been granted sufficient access to him, and in addition without explanation from the Chinese authority, Liu Yingli and Dr. Li's lawyer have been denied access to Dr. Li. Of course, all of this raises questions about the rights of people in China who do not have the U.S. embassy watching out for their interests, how much worse it must be for them. The People's Republic of China is a proud nation that is increasingly taking its place on the world stage. All of us are aware of their desire to have increased trading relationships with the West; to host the Olympic games; to be on the modern stage of nations. If China wants to be a member of the community of nations, actions like the detainment of Dr. Li are unacceptable and, I would argue, counterproductive. It is only appropriate that Congress make clear that Dr. Li and other U.S. citizens who are being illegally detained must be released. Violation of human rights, violation of standards, international standards of law, are not behavior consistent with a modern nation that wants to be part of the modern world of trade, of academic inquiry and exchange, and international exchange. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to pass this legislation. We must do all we can to see that these Americans are released as quickly as possible.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I would like to right off the bat thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for bringing recognition to John and Abigail Adams and their family, a century and three quarters after his death. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his generous gift of time to show me the old house in Quincy and introduce me to the Adams' family. Having grown up on a family farm in Braintree, now Quincy, Massachusetts, Adams was fully expected to become a farmer and a clergyman, but he soon abandoned any hope of a quiet private life in exchange for a life that called on his vision and valor in the birth of a republic. I underscore valor, because he and his compatriots at that time for all they knew were marching straight to the gallows. While many of his contemporaries were calling for compromise with Britain, Adams was one of the first to realize that independence was the only reasonable resolution of the relationship between the oppressive parent and its upstart colony. Adams realized that America's future did not lie in negotiating concessions, but in promoting liberty by whatever means necessary. The fact that he was willing to fight for our independence is an indication of how fervently he believed in liberty, yet much of his public service was focused on avoiding war. During the first months of his Presidential administration, Adams was confronted with the very real prospect of war with France. Many in his own party, including his own cabinet, supported the idea of waging war. Adams insisted on peaceful negotiations and diplomacy, and he was wise to have done so. It is also only fitting in this legislation that we recognize his wife, Abigail. Through their 54-year marriage, Abigail was a sounding board and John Adams' closest advisor. No doubt, John Adams was one of the most visionary, valiant and courageous patriots to shape the American system. There are good reasons why our Constitutional government survives and thrives, and the Massachusetts constitution that preceded it; John Adams' genius is a large part of that reason. Now, some say we might not want to devote precious space here in the District of Columbia to yet another monument. By the same token, I suppose we could steer the millions of tourists here to go to Charlottesville, Virginia, or to Springfield, Illinois, to the hometowns of these great patriots, and see the sites there and send millions of tourists to the narrow streets of Quincy. No. We should have a monument to this great man, these great people, here near the seat of government in Washington, D.C. I thank my colleague for promoting this legislation.