Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H. Res. 895, a resolution establishing an independent Office of Congressional Ethics within the House of Representatives. I believe it is a long overdue, although partial, step to protect the public trust and bring greater transparency and accountability to the people's House. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Speaker said we must drain the swamp. We made some changes to the House Rules and passed legislation that mandated more extensive limits on gifts and travel, greater disclosure of activities by lobbyists, helped slow the revolving door of Members of Congress and staff to lobbying on behalf of private interests and brought greater transparency to the earmark process. Yesterday, following painstaking drafts, we took further steps. The scandals that have embroiled this institution over the last few years because of the unethical conduct of certain Members of Congress have eroded the faith that Americans have in our legislative branch of government. What has only deepened this cynicism is the belief that Congress does a very poor job in investigating the ethical lapses of its own Members. The contentious nature of the current ethics process has too often led to deadlock and an inability to truly investigate claims concerning Members of both parties. While I commend the leadership and the membership of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the work they have done under trying circumstances, it is clear that the process has been missing an independent voice that can help us get above the partisanship and rancor that too often accompany these types of investigations. This bill is a step toward creating that independent voice. The legislation establishes an Independent Office of Congressional Ethics, composed of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and the Minority Leader. Three of the members of the office will be nominated by the Speaker with the concurrence of the Minority Leader; three members would be nominated by the Minority Leader with the concurrence of the Speaker. The members, who cannot be current Members of the House, Federal employees or lobbyists, would serve four-year terms with one reappointment possible. The Office would have the ability to initiate review by written notice provided by two Office members, one of which must be appointed by the Speaker, the other by the Minority Leader. The Office would have the ability to refer a matter if three members affirmatively vote to move it to the Ethics Committee. The legislation has the support of a number of groups that have called for strong reform of the ethics process, including Common Cause, U.S. PIRG and recognized public policy experts such as Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann at the Brookings Institute. They recognize that in the past, the principle of Congress policing itself has just not worked. They have played a vital role in making sure that today's resolution comes to a vote so that all of us live up to the oath of office we take the first day of every new Congress. I also want to commend the Speaker who has promised and delivered on her pledge to bring vigorous, ethical leadership to this institution. Without taking action, we will only allow public cynicism about government to continue to grow. This important resolution will bring real ethics reform to Congress. It will help reestablish the trust and confidence of the American people in this institution and in the principle of honest and open government.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of this legislation. I'm pleased to have been a co-sponsor of this bill, because the service programs and the new initiatives will help to address some of our Nation's toughest problems about poverty to natural disasters and will help improve the lives of millions of our most valuable citizens. The bill will increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers by a third and will significantly increase the stipends for those volunteers. I particularly want to highlight a section that I am proud of. It is a section that will create opportunities for professionals in the sciences and technical fields to keep America competitive. It engages scientists and engineers in volunteerism and encourages their efforts to address unmet education and human needs. It will use scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians, for example, to close the digital divide that creates such a chasm between low-income communities and the more privileged communities. The bill also creates a national civilian conservation corps that, as a residential program, will be deployed in times of national need, such as emergencies and disasters. When not deployed in such circumstance, they will build infrastructure, protect the environment, conserve our resources, and help with urban and rural development. Mr. Speaker, this is outstanding legislation. We really should commend Mrs. McCarthy as well as Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Platts for their work on this legislation. I urge passage.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee. When Congress passed this bill last year, I lauded several of its features, provisions aimed at attracting and retaining people with good foreign language capability and understanding of foreign cultures, a provision bringing speed to security clearance processes for new hires, the provision directing the Director of National Intelligence to establish a multilevel security clearance process, a provision requiring the inspector general to review all covert action programs, and a number of other things. Getting these things right is critically important because intelligence is among the most important functions of our government. A good intelligence system can save lives by preventing war, or, should war come, by helping to win the war as quickly as possible. But a flawed intelligence system can be dangerous, as when intelligence is manipulated so as to take America to war under false pretenses, or when fearsome powers of the government are turned on its own citizens without checks and balances. Indeed, it's because this President opposes checks and balances on our intelligence system that we are forced to have this veto override today. Let's be clear, American personnel, civilian or military, should never engage in interrogation practices that amount to torture. The provision the President objects to would simply put the entire U.S. Government under one standard for interrogating detainees, the Army Field Manual. The heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI have testified that the nontorture guidelines in this bill are adequate for their people to follow in interrogation of dangerous people. If the President were serious about restoring our reputation in the world and about providing moral and legal clarity for all government employees involved in the handling or interrogation of detainees, he would never have vetoed this bill. Providing that moral and legal clarity is our constitutional obligation. And to that end, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, so far this primary season elections have been conducted in 14 States that still use unauditable voting machines, purely electronic. I have shared in letters to my colleagues information about incidents in a number of States, one where 90 percent of the machines were not functioning in one county when the polls opened; and another State, where results from the internal paper tapes did not match results on the corresponding memory cartridges; another State, where six voting machines in a county had faulty memory cards; in a polling place in Chicago, where no touch screen machines were working; and at a polling place in Atlanta, where only one in five was working. In counties where there are no paper records verified by their voters, the irregularities cannot be resolved. Machine failures elsewhere would have prevented voters from voting had back-up paper ballots not been available. Some jurisdictions where paper ballots are required allow voting data to be verified by the voters and then used to confirm the results despite the failure of electronic memory. There is still time before November to secure our electoral system. The Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, if enacted, will provide localities what they need to do this. Please support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Andrews. Mr. Speaker, it will be a landmark day when we realize that health is not just about fixing broken bones. It's about having a healthy, complete individual from head to toe. Today the House takes an important step to require mental health parity in insurance, and I particularly want to thank and recognize Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, and the late Paul and Sheila Wellstone. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans suffer from mental illness of some form. Few Americans are untouched and no one is immune. Some of my colleagues have expressed their concern about the cost of providing mental health parity; yet an analysis of the bill indicates that it would result in an increase of less than 1 percent in premiums and would reduce out-of-pocket costs by about 18 percent. Further, according to a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, employers who actively encourage their employees to use mental health services actually experience better health outcomes and, I want to emphasize this, increases in hours worked and productivity gained. I include in the Record an editorial from the Journal of the American Medical Association from last September of 2007 dealing with the treatment of depression. Reducing the Burden of Depression--Building Villages for Coordinated Care (Kenneth B. Wells and Jeanne Miranda) In this issue of JAMA, Wang et al provide evidence that implementing depression care programs through employer- sponsored managed behavioral health can improve clinical outcomes, job retention, and effective hours worked compared with usual care. The programs encouraged depressed workers to learn about and use evidence-based depression treatments, supported clinicians in following practice guidelines, and offered telephone counseling and self-help workbooks. The monetary value of the increased work time under the program exceeded the direct intervention costs and likely exceeded or was within the range of cost increases due to greater mental health specialty use under the intervention. While formal estimates of cost-effectiveness and employer return on investment are pending, it appears to be in the business interests of many employers to implement such programs to protect their investments in the retention and productivity of workers they have hired and trained. These findings should be evaluated within the context of the simple but startling facts about depression. Clinical depressive disorders are among the most prevalent of major medical conditions, affecting about 16% of adults in their lifetime. Owing to high prevalence, early age at onset (unlike other debilitating disorders that occur past the age of parenting and work responsibilities), and strong impact on functional status, depressive disorders are leading contributors to disability worldwide. Depressive disorders are highly treatable yet often remain unrecognized and untreated. While a number of effective programs promote higher use of treatments in service delivery settings, particularly primary care practices, these programs are not yet widely implemented. Thus, technology is available to treat this disabling condition, but US health care systems have failed to take full advantage of the technology to reduce personal or societal consequences of depression. The intervention approach in the study by Wang et al can be characterized as ``building a village'' of health plans, clinicians, and resources that ``surround'' depressed persons with opportunities to learn about and engage in evidence- based care, attending to a careful fit of intervention requirements and context-specific implementation options. This approach has generally proven effective in primary care, and the substantial outreach efforts mirror those in the WE Care study demonstrating that depression treatments are effective for low-income and minority women. In the study by Wang et al telephone managers from the behavioral health company offered counseling and communicated recommendations to clinicians, an extension of their usual role. In the Partners in Care study, primary care nurses expanded their disease management skills to include assessment, education, and follow-up concerning depression. In both studies, patients and clinicians were free to use or not use study resources according to their preferences. Such interventions have the advantage of preserving the naturalistic context of the delivery systems, potentially facilitating the translation of findings into change by example. Interventions in both studies achieved roughly similar outcomes: a 10 percentage-point gain in use of appropriate treatment and in recovery from depression over a year, as well as roughly 2 more weeks of days worked in a year in the study by Wang et al and a month more of days worked over 2 years in Partners in Care. Depression interventions have many advantages for individuals, their family and friends, employers and society, over and above relief of individual symptoms. As mothers' depression improves following care, for example, their children also enjoy improvements in mental health. The study by Wang et al demonstrates that treatment of depression increases productivity and may reduce economic losses due to depression for employees and employers. If such gains exceed costs of providing the interventions and treatments, there is ``money on the table'' across stakeholders that could be used to pay for interventions. Why then do many individuals with depression endure their illness without care? One barrier to care is that depression affects motivation and cognition, making it difficult for many individuals with depression to realize they have a need and obtain care without the outreach provided by nurse/care managers. Family members also may fail to identify depression or have knowledge about appropriate care. This suggests that opportunities to improve access to depression care should be embedded within an infrastructure available to potentially depressed persons, such as primary care settings. However, an awareness of the effects of treatment on social costs such as productivity may not provide a strong incentive for clinicians and health plans to improve care, as they do not necessarily face immediate financial consequences from patients' changes in productivity or may not track this outcome. Yet most private health care in the United States is financed through employer-sponsored insurance. Direct contributions to the bottom line of employers offers them an incentive to promote depression care, independent of policy mandates or other motives such as responding to employee demand. Other stakeholders, including policy makers and the public, may benefit from improved depression care through an increased tax base from employees who work more or an overall improved economy. Yet it is challenging in the US policy environment to use economic gains from one policy sector such as the labor market as leverage to support improved health care, However some policy changes could be implemented to better align the incentives to implement depression care programs across diverse stakeholders and to avoid undermining the goals of such programs, for example by excluding depression treatment from health insurance coverage when changing jobs or insurance based on a recent history of depression treatment in an employer-based depression program. Under such an ill-advised policy, the risk of losing coverage would serve as a major deterrent to seeking care. The need to coordinate program implementation and policy suggests an expanded concept of ``a village,'' that includes not only wrap-around interventions but coordinated efforts across affected stakeholders. It may be trite that the stakeholder with the most power to influence services delivery for most Americans is the employer, but broader and deeper change in access to depression care may yet require a concerted effort among affected parties to yield prograns that address public and self-stigma and to provide access to depression treatments under policies that facilitate use of such programs and do not penalize individuals for using them. Studies such as that by Wang et al strongly support such integrated solutions. Exactly how programs to improve depression care are implemented may affect the distribution of benefits--an important issue given evidence of disparities in quality of depression care and the potential for practice-based programs to overcome disparities in depression outcomes. Developers of interventions and policies should consider implications of their design for inclusion of underserved groups who may not seek behavioral health care. Despite the extensive efforts by Wang et al to reach general employees, the majority of persons had already inquired about outpatient care. Learning how to optimize personal and societal gains by improving access to quality depression care across diverse communities through employer, practice, and community-based programs and policy changes is a next agenda for evidence-based action. As a community participant in the Witness for Wellness program recently stated: ``Depression is everybody's business.'' Now, ultimately, despite the economic arguments in favor of parity, it is not a debate about dollars and cents but about lives saved and people restored. Let's work to ensure that those who need access to mental health will get it.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it will be a landmark day when we realize that health is not just about fixing broken bones. It's about having a healthy, complete individual from head to toe. Millions of Americans suffer from mental illness of some form, conditions that disrupt a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others, and daily functioning. Mental illnesses strain families and can contribute to lost productivity, unemployment, substance abuse, homelessness, or suicide. Few Americans are untouched by it. No one is immune. Prompt and comprehensive treatment can reduce enormously these effects, but insurance companies--including government plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--frequently impose limits on coverage for mental health that are not imposed on traditional medical and surgical care. Already this year, Congress has worked to address these inequalities in the federal health programs. Today, the House of Representatives is taking a significant step toward finally ending the insurance discrimination that has existed for decades against people with mental illness. Representative Patrick Kennedy and Representative Jim Ramstad deserve credit for their strong leadership on the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, H.R. 1424, which I am proud to cosponsor along with more than 270 of my colleagues. This much needed legislation would require insurance companies to provide benefits for mental health and substance abuse treatment equal to those provided for physical medical treatment. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act would require that all Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV, illnesses be covered, rather than letting insurance companies determine their own scope of coverage. This is the same coverage requirements that we as Members of Congress receive under our federal employee health plan, and our constituents deserve no less coverage. The American Psychological Association, which publishes DSM-IV, reports that lack of insurance coverage (87 percent) and cost (81 percent) are the leading factors for individuals not seeking mental health services. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act would solve both of these problems. Additionally, unlike the bill working through the Senate, H.R. 1424 would not preempt state law. This is very important for the residents of my home state of New Jersey and others who already have mental health parity laws on the books. For good reason these states worry that they might be forced to reduce their coverage requirements. We know that mental illness is treatable, yet because one third of the people affected do not receive needed treatments, mental illness remains a leading cause of disability and premature death. According to the World Health Organization, the costs related to untreated mental illness are $147 billion each year in the United States. Those who oppose the legislation thinking it is too expensive should note this cost. Yet, an analysis of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act indicates it would result in an increase of less than one percent premiums and would reduce out-of-pocket costs by 18 percent. Further, a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association, JAMA, indicates that employers who actively encourage their employees to use mental health services actually experienced an increase in hours worked and productivity gains. Ultimately, despite the economic arguments in favor of parity, it is not a debate about dollars and cents, but about lives saved and people restored. I recently received a letter from a constituent who is a corporate human resource director. She did not write me in that capacity, however. Instead, she wrote me ``as the sister of a beloved brother who committed suicide one day after his in-patient mental health care benefit `ran-out'.'' She understood and related to me not only the human resources concerns, but also and especially, the true cost of mental health and the failure to enact mental health parity. Let's work to ensure that those who need access to mental health care, get it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, almost before the ink was dry on the February 22 letter to Intelligence Chairman Reyes claiming that the telecommunications companies were balking at their surveillance support requests, the DNI and Attorney General were forced to admit that the companies were, in fact, cooperating with the U.S. Government surveillance activities. It is not simple patriotic duty; it's the law. They must cooperate. Under FISA, if they're compelled to cooperate, they are automatically provided immunity. The truth is that the only time FISA phone taps have been turned off lately is when the President failed to pay the FBI phone bills. If you don't believe me, look at the Inspector General's report of the Department of Justice in 2008 this year. The real issue before us is this: How do we produce law that provides us better intelligence and safeguards Americans' liberties? The answer is we've done it through the RESTORE Act, and the sooner that House- passed bill becomes the law of the land, the better. Requiring the government to apply to a court and demonstrate to a standard of probable cause that they know what they're doing not only protects the liberty of Americans, it produces better intelligence.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. For the last 20 years, my colleagues in the scientific community have issued warnings that the release of greenhouse gases is altering the earth's climate in ways that are both expensive and deadly. It is well established that the climate change of recent decades can be attributed to the way we use energy. In fact, the greatest insult to our planet is the way we produce and use energy. This is one of the principle subjects that I have spoken about and worked on since I first ran for Congress, and it is one of the reasons, I believe, that my constituents sent me to Congress. As an energy scientist, I know how much can be done technically to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to slow the rate of climate change. Last year, Congress passed H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act, historic legislation that took the long overdue first steps toward addressing global climate change and addressing our long term energy needs. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate removed a provision from the H.R. 6 that would have repealed billions in tax subsidies for oil companies and instead invested in the production of renewable energy. I am pleased that the House is reconsidering these important provisions today in H.R. 5351. If this legislation becomes law it will be a significant second step toward implementing a rational, sustainable national energy policy. Today, consumers are paying more at the pump than ever before. My constituents in my Central New Jersey district are paying $2.95 at the pump, a 119 percent increase from what they paid in 2001. Gas prices throughout the country over the last two weeks have risen an additional 17 cents, and oil prices have reached a record high at $102 per barrel. While American families transportation and heating costs continue to rise, the five top oil companies posted record profits for 2007, and ExxonMobil posted the largest corporate profit in American history of $40.6 billion. At this time of record profits, oil companies are receiving huge government subsidies. It is past time that we reverse this failed policy which has only benefited big oil companies at the expense of American families and our environment. The legislation before us today would eliminate the $18 billion in tax breaks that have been awarded to big oil. It will use this money to extend and expand tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances. Specifically, it would extend existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas and trash combustion, as well as adding new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy. My home state of New Jersey has been a leader in solar production, with over 2,400 solar installations in place and I am told that it has the fastest growing solar market in the United States. The extension of the solar energy tax credit through 2016 will help ensure that the use of solar will continue to proliferate in New Jersey. This will help New Jerseyans reach our goal of having 20 percent of the State's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. The renewal of these tax credits will also help to increase our economy by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. According to a recent study, if the renewable energy tax breaks expire at the end of this year over 116,000 jobs in wind and solar industries would be lost in one year. Today, when the predicted economic growth forecast is an anemic pace of 1.3 to 2 percent and unemployment is likely to climb above percent, we in Congress should do everything we can to ensure job growth and preserve jobs. Of course, this bill is not enough. If it becomes law it will be an excellent continuation of the work we began last year. Having passed this bill we will be able to continue to consider other alternative energy and climate change legislation, and I am confident that we will. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Tom Lantos. The passing of Chairman Lantos is a great loss to the Congress, our Nation, and to oppressed people worldwide. Born in Budapest, Congressman Lantos was 16 in 1944 when Nazis captured and occupied the city. He twice escaped Nazi labor camps and was one of the thousands of Jews saved from the Holocaust by the humanity of the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. Yet most of his family members did not survive the Holocaust. At the end of the Second World War, Representative Lantos came to the United States with his childhood sweetheart, and soon-to-be wife, Annette Tillemann. Over the past 58 years, Lantos and Tillemann were rarely far apart and worked tirelessly together to champion human rights around the globe. Today, my thoughts and prayers are with her and the Lantos children. When Lantos came to Congress in 1980, the first major piece of legislation he introduced was to award honorary American citizenship to Raoul Wallenberg, whom he called ``the central figure in my life.'' Wallenberg was a central figure in the lives of many European Jews. A few years later Tom founded the Human Rights Caucus. As co-chairman of the caucus, Lantos was the leading critic of abusive and despotic regimes abroad. He was unafraid to confront the Chinese Government for its human rights record and he was undeterred in his efforts to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Most recently he helped move through Congress tough sanctions on the Burmese junta to help restore that country's democracy. As chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for the past year, Congressman Lantos continued to be a moral leader on human rights and an advocate for those who had none. Tom Lantos was a friend to me and to all people who believed in the basic rights of all people. I am honored to have served with him and I will do my best to work for continued fulfillment of his ideals.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Lungren and others who have spoken are right in one respect, yes, most of the House of Representatives voted not for the Protect America Act but rather for a substitute that we passed, a very good piece of legislation, that would indeed protect Americans, known as the RESTORE Act. That passed the House. It should be the law. We do not need the Protect America Act to protect Americans, the so- called Protect America Act. We do not need it to keep from going dark. But what we do need is the time and the attention to get this right. This is a serious, serious matter about protecting the safety of Americans but also about the definition, the relationship between the people of this country and their government. There has been a fundamental shift under the Protect America Act in the relationship between the people of this country and their government. It is whether or not the government regards the ordinary American with suspicion first. Think about it. The reason this country and our liberty has survived so well is because the government understands they are subservient to the people. The government has understood that they treat the people with respect, their bosses, and do not regard them with suspicion first. To be able to seize, search, intercept without having to demonstrate to an independent judge that you know what you are doing is a sign of disrespect. It is a sign of suspicion. It is, in fact, a redefinition of the makeup of this country. So if we need time to get this right, let's take the time. We don't need the Protect America Act to keep us from going dark, and I would argue we certainly don't need it, as they argue, to protect Americans from those who would do us harm. We have offered that protection in the RESTORE Act. Let's get this right.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, nurses are the backbone of our health care system. The shortage of nurses throughout our country leaves patients unattended, doctors stressed, and nurses exhausted from extra shifts. A principle reason for this shortage of nurses is the shortage of nursing school faculty. Because of the faculty shortage many schools of nursing are turning away good students who would make good nurses. I am pleased that my amendment which attaches the Nursing School Capacity Act, H.R. 677, to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137) has been accepted in the bill passed in the House. I thank Representative Welch and Representative Capps, one of the Co-Chairs of the House Nursing Caucus, for cosponsoring this amendment with me. H.R. 677, which has 76 cosponsors, directs the Institute of Medicine to study the constraints experienced by schools of nursing in admitting and graduating enough nurses to meet growing needs. I appreciate that House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller accepted our amendment and incorporated it into his Manager's Amendment. Today's action shows that Congress understands the healthcare crisis facing states like New Jersey. The study my amendment directs will explore the constraints that our nation's schools of nursing face and propose short and long term solutions to address the nursing crisis. I look forward to reviewing the study's recommendations and working to implement them before the quality of care suffers. Over the years, I have heard from many nursing professionals from New Jersey about the nursing crisis, particularly the inability of nursing schools to meet growing workforce demands. In fact, a study from the National League of Nursing states that in 2004, nursing schools were forced to turn down 147,000 qualified applicants due to a lack of faculty. That is why I first introduced the Nursing School Capacity Act three years ago, and why I am excited that it's close to becoming law today. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the American Nurses Association, the American Organization of Nurse Executives and the New Jersey Hospital Association all endorsed the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that their endorsement letters be included in the Record. We have not solved the nursing crisis with today's action, but we have taken a step in better understanding the problem. February 4, 2008. Hon. Rush Holt, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Holt: On behalf of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the American Nurses Association, we would like to thank you for offering the language included in the Nursing School Capacity Act of 2007 (H.R. 677) as an amendment to the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137). Over the past decade, the inability to increase the supply of nurses has become more apparent as the challenges faced by nursing education programs have intensified. These challenges force schools of nursing to turn away thousands of qualified applicants each year. According to a 2006 AACN report, U.S. nursing schools turned away 42,866 qualified applicants due to an insufficient number of faculty, clinical sites, classroom space, clinical preceptors, and budget constraints. Almost three quarters of the nursing schools responding to AACN's survey pointed to faculty shortages as a primary reason for not accepting all qualified applicants into nursing programs. A Special Survey on Vacant Faculty Positions released by AACN in July 2007, reported a total of 767 faculty vacancies (8.8 percent vacancy rate) identified at 329 nursing schools with baccalaureate and/or graduate programs across the country. Clearly, the obstacles faced by schools of nursing in attempting to increase enrollment and graduations are vastly complex and warrant further investigation. Your bill will facilitate the discussion of these constraints and help explore solutions to overcome the barriers that are preventing potential students from entering the nursing profession. In addition, your bill calls for recommendations to be made by the Institute of Medicine which will serve as a valuable resource for policy-makers as well as the health, industry, and education systems. AACN and ANA sincerely appreciate your willingness to thoroughly investigate the nursing and nurse faculty shortage through the Nursing School Capacity Act. Sincerely, American Association of Colleges of Nursing. American Nurses Association. American Organization of Nurse Executives, Washington, DC, February 4, 2008. Hon. Rush Holt, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Holt: On behalf of the over 6000 members of the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE) representing nurses in all facets of executive practice, we would like to express our strong support for the amendment that you and Representative Welch are prepared to offer to H.R. 4147 the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2000. The amendment incorporates the language of your bill H.R. 677, the Nursing School Capacity Act into a more comprehensive piece of legislation and would provide the nursing and health care communities with important research into the underlying causes of the nursing shortage. The majority of AONE's membership of registered professional nurses are leaders in the day-to-day management and delivery of direct patient care services. In this position, we have been able to see first hand the impacts of the worsening nursing shortage and applaud your efforts to address this critical situation through the provision of study to be conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. Understanding that the nursing shortage is the result of the convergence of a number of factors, your proposed legislation would identify the constraints encountered by schools of nursing in admitting and graduating the number of registered nurses to ensure patient safety but it would also propose recommendations to alleviate the constraints on a short-term and long-term basis. AONE has been in the forefront of attempts to deal with the nursing shortage and welcomes the opportunity to participate in the proposed study as a consultant in partnership with the other relevant organizations named in your legislation. AONE has focused on the work environment and the educational preparation of the nurse of the future. We see our past and current work as integral to the study you have proposed. Your legislation provides a comprehensive approach to identifying and quantifying the factors that have contributed to the shortage such as regulatory barriers, educational preparation, salary and benefit structures, and characteristics of the workplace. AONE applauds your efforts and those of Mr. Welch to include this needed legislation as an amendment to H.R. 4147 the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007. Sincerely, Carol A. Watson, President. Pamela A. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Mr. McKeon for producing a strong piece of legislation. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act does what the name suggests. It expands affordability and access to college education for the broadest range of Americans. It expands Pell Grants, the basis of financial aid, and I'm pleased to say it allows Pell Grants to be used year round and for certificate programs and part-time students, something I have been working on for a long time. The bill does many other things, including some initiatives that I have been working on. It empowers small and community colleges to provide child care programs so that working mothers can attend school. It includes grants and loan forgiveness for math and science students who pledge to conduct service in math and science fields after graduation. It includes grants for foreign language partnerships between local schools and language departments at institutions of higher learning and grants to institutions that will combine science with foreign languages. I am pleased that in the Education and Labor Committee we were able to pass an amendment so that this bill would create an Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education. I am pleased to note further that the bill will direct the Institute of Medicine to study how to deal with the shortage of nurses that's created by the shortage of nursing faculty. These initiatives are part of a large effort to make it easier for students to finance their education and an effort to strengthen the quality of education that they receive. This is a good bill. I look forward to working with Members of both parties to see it become law.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Thomas Gorrie, Johnson & Johnson's Corporate Vice President for Government Affairs & Policy on his retirement from the company. Johnson & Johnson has a long history as a New Jersey-based company, starting as it did making bandages and emerging over the years to become the world's largest health-care company. I am proud to represent many thousands of Johnson & Johnson's employees, including Dr. Gorrie, who is also a friend and neighbor. He has informed me of his plan to retire from Johnson & Johnson on March 1, 2008 after a productive 35 years of service, and I want to take a moment today to pay tribute to his lifetime of service and accomplishments. My colleagues here in the House may be familiar with Dr. Gorrie's work, even if they have not personally met him. Under his leadership he brought Johnson & Johnson to Congress by establishing the Johnson & Johnson Day on the Hill, where new pharmaceuticals, breakthrough technology and medical devices are on display for Members and staff to learn about and in the case of the iBOT, a power wheelchair, take it out for a spin. Born and raised in New Jersey, Dr. Gorrie received his bachelor of arts degree from Rutgers University and his masters and doctorate degrees in chemistry from Princeton University. After completion of post-doctoral studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Dr. Gorrie began his career with Johnson & Johnson in 1972 as a senior research scientist in the medical device area. He subsequently held positions of increasing responsibility in marketing, sales, and general management, including Company Group Chairman and Worldwide Franchise Chairman of Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., and member of the Consumer Pharmaceuticals and Professional Operating Group. He then worked with the Johnson & Johnson Development Corporation before assuming his current position as world- wide head of government affairs and policy in 1999. Tom is an active member of his community and currently serves on numerous non-profit boards. He is Chair of the Duke University Health System, a member of the Board of Directors of Duke University, and a Trustee Emeritus of the Board for the Hun School of Princeton. He is a member of the Board of the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations and Vice Chair of the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment (CAEFI). Finally, he is an adjunct professor at one of our state's finest educational facilities, the Rutgers Business School. The way that Dr. Gorrie imbues all of his work with admirable ethics is reflected in this book he edited a few years ago, ``Ethics and the Pharmaceutical Industry.'' For the book Dr. Gorrie brought together representatives of industry, government, NGOs, and leading thinkers in medicine, health ethics and economics to propose solutions and safeguards to the many ethical challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry. The book touched on such topics as the ethical demands and economic constraints of drug research, the right of patients to participate in clinical trials, the regulation of prescription drugs and intellectual property rights. I was pleased to write a chapter on how government should regulate stem-cell research. As Congress continues to debate many of the issues the book explores, I recommend its scholarship to my colleagues. Madam Speaker, Johnson & Johnson is one of America's leading and most innovative pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device and consumer healthcare companies. I commend Dr. Gorrie's service at Johnson & Johnson. I know we have all benefited from Dr. Gorrie's leadership during the past 35 years, and as he continues to increase his civic participation, many will continue to benefit from Tom's vision and talents.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the United States of America has remained for more than two centuries a model to the world is the constitutional promise of the first amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' I did not vote against H. Res. 847, but I strongly believe it should never have been brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. It is appropriate for Congress to address moral and ethical issues of societal import, but not issues of religious import. Congress should not legislate on whether Jesus is peoples' ``savior'' or whether Christmas symbolizes ``God's redemption and mercy.'' Despite some good phrases, H. Res. 847 was inappropriate legislation that deserved neither a ``yes'' nor a ``no.'' I voted present, as I have occasionally done for legislation that I believe should never have been brought forward. Those of us who practice our deeply held religious beliefs are able to worship more freely than anywhere else in the world because of this important protection that our founders installed so wisely. My Christian religious faith not only supports my entire life and dedication to service; it also leads me often to speak out on religious tolerance in the world. Some people have noted that earlier this year I had voted to honor the Muslim observance of Ramadan and then recently refused to vote to honor Christmas. That is not really true. In October I voted in favor of a resolution that at the time of the Muslim Ramadan expressed ``friendship'' and ``respect'' for Muslims and commended Muslims who reject ``hatred'' and ``bigotry'' and who present Islam as supporting ``tolerance and full civil and political rights.'' That was a message of societal and political import, not religious, and different in tone and content from the recent resolution celebrating Christmas. That is the way I see it, and when it comes to votes on the floor of the House, I call them as I see them. I trust my constituents will see it as a thoughtful and conscientious vote, even if they disagree with it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the government often negotiates agreements or promulgates regulations that may produce unintended consequences for certain individuals. In such instances, Congress will review the implementation of the law and try to rectify those unintended problems even if the general requirements should remain. For example, exemptions are made in transportation regulations, Government land use, and trade legislation. Such is the case with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which was enacted in 1989. Since then Congress has acted occasionally to reduce, suspend, or repeal duties on certain imports as a matter of economic fairness and competitiveness. Tariffs serve not only to raise revenue for the Government, but also to benefit American business and industry and holdings. Tariffs are notoriously complicated in their effects, and the policies are very difficult to get right. Each of the nine bills I prepared recently would either suspend or reduce the import duty on a specific chemical compound. Each bill and the chemical compound in question is publicly available and open for all to see and comment on. I believe such openness is an important part of effective Government. By suspending the import duty on products not made domestically in the United States, Congress can remove an economic barrier that might send production abroad--taking with it good-paying jobs--and also can help lower costs to consumers for the final products. These bills were all submitted to comply with procedures and criteria set by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade. None of the chemical compounds is manufactured in the U.S., the value of each of the requested duty suspensions is no more than $500,000, and their suspensions can be enforced by U.S. Customs officials. The products produced using the imported feedstocks are deemed to be desirable to produce and use in the U.S. Introduction of the bills is just the beginning of a long process of scrutiny by the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Department of Commerce. Each one will seek information about potential domestic production, present and future imports, and will research the revenue loss associated with the suspension. Additionally, the Subcommittee on Trade will solicit public comment from all interested parties. An objection at any point throughout this process can disqualify the product for further consideration. At the end of this process, the Committee on Ways and Means will put together a miscellaneous tariff bill that includes hundreds of items that have met these rigorous criteria. I expect that temporarily suspending the duty on the nine products I have requested will help our local economy by making American manufacturers more competitive in the global marketplace.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the House made a serious mistake last August when it passed the Protect America Act. I opposed the legislation at the time because it authorized a massive, unregulated electronic fishing expedition, an approach guaranteed to ensnare innocent Americans and a sloppy, inefficient way to collect intelligence. It lacks the basic standard of court review of the government's actions. If we have learned anything, it is when officials must establish before an independent court that they know what they are doing when they collect communications, we get better intelligence than we do through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions. Extending the PAA is unnecessary because existing orders issued under it will continue for a year and are broad enough in scope to deal with any contingencies that may arise. In November we passed in this body a good bill to replace the PAA. Congress should never pass legislation under duress brought on by propaganda, misinformation, and fear-mongering. I urge my colleagues to remember this when we debate the topic today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, later this week Congress will return to the issue of how best to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In November in this House of Representatives, we passed a very good bill. We would do well to observe the principles established in that bill. Any final review of domestic surveillance passed by Congress should include court review of executive branch actions. The reason for this requirement is quite simple. Having a legal standard of review provides us both better intelligence and better civil liberty protections for our people. It is simple. It has been demonstrated that when officials must establish before an independent court that they know what they are doing, that they have reason to intercept communications, we get better intelligence. And, of course, that's the point, to have the intelligence to protect the American people from indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions. Those are not productive. In November, we passed a bill that would do this, the RESTORE Act. That bill guarantees court review of executive branch actions related to surveillance activities. I would commend that bill to this House.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there's no question that mining has been a dangerous job. And today coal mining is rated among the most dangerous occupations in America. It does not have to be that way. As a scientist, I've paid some attention to mine safety technology, but I also feel strongly about the concerns of those working in mines because I was born and raised in West Virginia, where my father, many years ago, as a member of the House of Delegates, and later in the Senate, was known as one of the best friends the miner ever had. As an original cosponsor of the S-MINER Act, I want to thank Chairman Miller and our staff for recognizing the importance of getting communications technology, currently existing, and that being developed, into the mines as quickly as possible. This bill improves the work of the previous Congress by requiring that enhanced communications and miner tracking systems be installed immediately upon enactment. I remain troubled that the Mine Safety and Health Administration and mine operators have delayed getting promising technology into the mines. It is really heartrending to share in the terror and tragedy of miners stranded without communication. A year ago, NIOSH reached an agreement with the U.S. Army Communications and Electronics Research Center at Fort Monmouth in New Jersey to test and develop the KUTTA communications system because communications on the battlefield and in noisy environments subject to disruptions have lessons for communications in the mines. Mr. Chairman, MSHA has not acted with the urgency needed to prevent future miner fatalities. Today Congress is acting. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because, in the wake of the Sago and Darby and Crandall Canyon mine tragedies, we should not have to face more families who have faced these tragedies, and we should do everything we can to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was originally enacted in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans paid at least some income taxes--like everybody else. Before the AMT, the richest Americans could unfairly dodge their taxes by using deductions to sidestep their social obligations. However, what began at the end of the Johnson administration as an attempt to guarantee that the top few hundred Americans pay their fair share of taxes--has not been indexed for inflation and as a result has slowly morphed into a middle-class tax hike. More families in Central New Jersey are affected by the AMT than anywhere else in the country. Currently 33,292 of my constituents are hit by the AMT and this number will increase to 121,503 if we do not take action today. Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill should have been paid for. I voted twice now for appropriate offsets to ensure that we keep our promise to the American people that we will not continue to spend money that this Congress does not have. We can not continue to borrow money from China and other countries in order to pay for the choices we make today. It is our children and grandchildren that will be forced to pay this debt around the world. Unfortunately President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to worry about the costs of this bill and the effect it will have on the next generation. I will continue to support my colleagues in making sure increase in spending or cuts in taxes are paid for and that next year we find an offset so that we do not pass this debt to the future generations. However, with the prospect of having an additional 88,211 of my constituents pay the AMT, I believe we must move today to enact an AMT fix. We cannot make the middle class pay for the failures of the administration. I urge all my colleagues to support this important tax reform that will help middle class families from unfair tax burden.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to Patriot Week in Trenton, New Jersey. On December 26, 1776, Colonial soldiers under the command of General George Washington crossed the Delaware River and engaged in the first Battle of Trenton. As Thomas Paine wrote, this happened during ``times that try men's souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.'' On this historic day more than two centuries ago, over 2,400 patriots proved that they were not summer soldiers, battling their way through a winter sleet storm, strong winds and the ice-strewn Delaware River. Against all odds, Washington and his soldiers completed the crossing, marched silently to Trenton on Christmas night with cannon, and arrived taking the Hessian garrison by surprise. This engagement, followed by the pivotal Battle of Princeton, has been called ``the beginning of the winning.'' The crossing of the Delaware is a story that must be told again and again so all generations will know this feat and the new life it gave the American Revolution. On December 26 through 31 of this year, again this year, the Trenton Downtown Association will celebrate the 131st anniversary of this history-changing event through Patriot Week, the largest Revolutionary War festival in America. Patriot Week in the Trenton area will include over 50 events, including the reenactment of Washington's crossing of the Delaware, puppet shows and other children's activities, tours by bus and on foot, and lectures and panel discussions. These events will help pass down this great and important story to our children and to adults, the story of the War for Independence. I am sure these events will be both informative and entertaining, as they have been in previous years, and I look forward to attending some of these events myself. I am proud that in my central New Jersey district we honor the sacrifices that were made to found this great Nation through events like Patriot Week and through the Crossroads of the American Revolution which commemorates 14 counties in New Jersey where the War for Independence took place. However, our battles against Britain for a free and democratic nation took place in over 19 States and over two wars, and each of these States has its own unique story about its role in the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Many States, however, have not taken sufficient steps to preserve the sites of those battles. Out of the 825 significant battlefields and associated sites of the American Revolution and the War of 1812, more than 100 of these battlefields have been lost, about 250 are in fragmented or poor condition, and another 220 are in danger of being destroyed within the next few years. Therefore, some of us have sponsored here in the House of Representatives the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act, H.R. 160, and the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Commemorative Coin Act, H.R. 158. H.R. 160 would create a national program for the preservation of historic battlefields. It would allow officials of the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments and nonprofit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites and to provide up to 50 percent of the cost of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. H.R. 158 would provide the necessary funding for these purchases by authorizing the creation and issuance of commemorative coins for these two wars. History is best understood by those who have had the opportunity to touch it, experience it and live it. On December 26 through 31, over 4,000 people will be reliving the history of the Battle of Trenton during Patriot Week. It is my hope that Congress will pass H.R. 160 and H.R. 158 to allow other States the privilege of preserving their historic battlefields where their citizens, and all citizens, can experience the history of the founding of our great Nation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the conference report in front of us today, imperfect as it is, addresses several key issues facing our intelligence community today: attracting and retaining people with foreign languages and cultures; bringing speed to security clearance processes for new hires; the provision directing the Director of National Intelligence to establish a multilevel security clearance process; and a number of other things. But as the person appointed by Speaker Pelosi to chair the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, I'm especially interested and supportive of the provisions of this legislation that will improve the ability of Congress to exert oversight of the intelligence activities of this country, such as requirements that the intelligence community report to Congress and requirements that strengthen the Inspectors General in the intelligence community. Intelligence is among the most important functions of our government because intelligence can save lives, prevent war, and assist our soldiers and protect Americans. But it is also among the most dangerous, dangerous because of the damage of intelligence poorly done, the damage that can be done to American interests and America's reputation and the freedoms and humane behavior that Americans hold dear. So these oversight provisions are particularly important. Another provision of this legislation that I'm pleased to see is the requirement that the DNI produce National Intelligence Estimates on Iran and North Korea. I'm pleased to see that it seems that some reforms are now reflected in the way that the intelligence community does these National Intelligence Estimates. The recent Iran report appears to be a product of a reformed intelligence process. Now, I've argued for years that we should have only one policy on how to handle detainees, and this bill addresses that issue head-on by requiring that the U.S. Government personnel and contractors, anyone involved in detainee operations, adhere to the Army Field Manual. The bottom line is this: no torture of detainees, period. I'm thankful that we're finally taking that issue straight on; and in light of last week's news involving the CIA's detainee operations, I think it's clear that we still have more work to do. The revelations surrounding and the ongoing investigations of the CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations only underscore why Congress must establish clear policies for the video recording of detainee interrogations. I'm offering legislation in addition to what we're dealing with today that will deal with this, and I look forward to working with Chairman Reyes and the House leadership to bring that measure to the floor for a vote very soon.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for the past 20 years, my colleagues in the scientific community have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth's climate in ways that are expensive and deadly. It is well established in the scientific community that the climate change of recent decades can be attributed to the way we produce and use energy. In fact, the greatest insult to our planet is the way we produce and use energy. As an energy scientist, I know how much can be done technically to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to slow the rate of global climate change. In fact, many countries around the world are taking those steps. Today, here in the House of Representatives, we have passed historic legislation which will finally take the long overdue first steps toward addressing global climate change and addressing our long-term energy needs. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on this comprehensive bill which will move us toward reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and will spur the economic growth and will create new jobs and stave off further damage to our environment and our climate. This is one of the principle subjects that I have spoken about and worked on since I first ran for Congress, and it is one of the reasons, I believe, that my constituents sent me to Congress. There are some excellent provisions in this bill that will drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This includes increasing the average automobile fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It will require the nationwide implementation of renewable portfolio standards requiring 15 percent of the Nation's energy in power generation to come from renewable sources. And these two provisions alone will save consumers as much as $40 billion in a dozen years and will decrease our annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 324 million tons. H.R. 6 will reverse many of the environmental detrimental policies that this administration and this country have implemented over the past 6 years. It will repeal the $23 billion in tax subsidies and royalty relief provisions for fabulously wealthy oil companies. It will use this money to invest in renewable energy research and extend existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy. My home State of New Jersey has led the way on these issues. New Jersey has already implemented a renewable portfolio standard that requires 20 percent of the State's energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. New Jersey is the second leading State in solar energy production, with over 2,400 solar installations in place, and I am told it is the fastest growing market for solar energy in the United States. The legislation passed here today will require our appliances and buildings to be more energy efficient, it will provide job training to help workers become part of the green economy, it will require the United States to re-enter into the debate on global climate change, it will provide historic investment in renewable energy and biofuels research. Of course, this bill is not enough. If it becomes law, it will be a start, a very good start. Having passed this bill, we will be able to consider other alternative energy and climate change legislation, and I am confident that we will.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1429. I would like to thank Chairman Miller for producing a bipartisan product of high quality. For almost 40 years, Head Start has assisted low-income preschool children and their families, establishing a comprehensive early-learning environment and addressing a variety of social and medical needs. The program has provided services to over 20 million children and their families since its inception in 1965. Currently, over 900,000 children are enrolled in almost 2,600 local Head Start programs. Children with disabilities make up 10 percent of Head Start Children. However, less then 50 percent of eligible preschoolers are served by Head Start and 2 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are served in Early Head Start. In my district, Head Start has been a tremendous success, with over 1,000 children enrolled in 18 programs. The majority of these children, about three-quarters, are from families with incomes below the Federal poverty line. Head Start's comprehensive medical and social services provide important benefits to these children. In my central New Jersey district, 91 percent of Head Start children have received basic primary health care and 84 percent have a continuous, accessible source of dental care. The program has also provided mental health services to over 200 children and assisted almost 150 children with disabilities. Today's bill provides greater flexibility to serve children whose family income is just above the Federal poverty line, up to 130 percent of the poverty line, while ensuring that serving the neediest children remains the program's top priority. The conference report authorizes total funding of $7.99 billion for fiscal year 2010 allowing tens of thousands more children access to the program. This bill addresses a number of problems that have been identified. For example, the bill prioritizes expansion for Early Head Start, which serves children from birth to age 3, so more children can receive Head Start during the critical development years when their brains are growing the fastest. The conference report ensures more participation of homeless children by removing barriers to their enrollment. The bill enhances opportunities for children with disabilities to participate in Head Start programs. I am also pleased to report that the bill continues to improve the already improving Head Start teacher qualifications. The bill increases teacher qualifications so that 50 percent of teachers nationwide must have a BA in early childhood education or a related field by 2013. Mr. Speaker, I have seen the effects of Head Start in my district. Children in Head Start in my district are more likely to receive necessary medical services than other low-income children. They are nearly three times as likely as other low-income children to receive basic medical care and six times as likely to receive dental care. This bill will allow these benefits to be expanded and improved. I ask my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. When Congress made the error of passing in haste and in fear the unconstitutional Protect America Act this past August, some of us could take a bit of comfort from this sorry episode in that it would expire. That meant we would get another chance to get things right, to actually pass a bill that would protect our country from terrorists and also from those in government who would turn the fearsome powers of our Federal intelligence and enforcement communities against the American people. I am pleased to say that after some intense work, we have a bill that does that. The RESTORE Act now includes provisions via the manager's amendment that will ensure that it is the courts, not an executive branch political appointee, who decides whether or not the communications of American citizens are to be seized and searched, and that such seizures and searches must be done pursuant to a court order that meets the standard of probable cause. This bill now gives our citizens the best protection we can provide them: good intelligence and the review of the executive branch's actions by a court. We, everyone here, can tell each of our constituents, Muslim Americans, soldiers in uniform, international businessmen, college students: you have the protection of the courts. Mr. Speaker, I thank both chairmen of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees for working so diligently to get this right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the RESTORE Act later today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend and colleague from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. As many of you know, when the committee reported this bill to the floor, I expressed concerns that it lacked provisions ensuring that the courts would decide whether the executive branch could seize and search communications of Americans. The RESTORE Act now before us includes provisions via the manager's amendment that will ensure that it is the courts, not an executive branch political appointee, who decides whether or not the communications of an American can be seized and searched and that such seizures and searches must be done pursuant to an individualized court order. This bill gives our citizens the best protection we can provide them, a sound intelligence collection that will foil our enemies and the review of the executive branch's surveillance actions by the court. In other words, each of us can say to each of our constituents: you have the protection of the court. Now, it is important to note that this bill will provide better intelligence than existing law, the existing law which was passed in haste and fear. This bill, by applying checks and balances, improves intelligence collection and analysis. It has been demonstrated that when officials establish before a court that they have reason to intercept communications, we get better intelligence, better intelligence than we get through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions. Mr. Speaker, this does it right. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking the staff of the committee, Jeremy Bash and Eric Greenwald; and from the Judiciary Committee, Lou DeBaca and Burt Wides; as well as the chairmen, Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers, who took my concerns to heart and made them their own concerns. It has produced a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the RESTORE Act. Mr. Speaker, the RESTORE Act will ensure that it is the courts--and not an executive branch political appointee--who decide whether or not the communications of an American citizen can be seized and searched, and that such seizures and searches must be done pursuant to a court order. This bill gives our citizens the best protection we can provide them: good intelligence collection against our adversaries, and review of the executive branch's surveillance actions by a court. I was pleased to be able to work with my colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to add several key provisions to this bill. For example, the bill's most critical new provision ensures that the government must have an individualized, particularized court-approved warrant based on probable cause in order to read or listen to the communications of an American citizen. Inclusion of this provision was vital. We must be able to assure our citizens that their communications cannot be seized and searched by the government in the absence of a court order, and with this provision now in the bill, we can provide that assurance. Another provision I worked to include requires the Court to review and approve not only the procedures and guidelines required under this Act, but also the application of those guidelines. This provision provides another important point of review by the courts that will help ensure that the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence are actually doing what they claim they are doing. I also asked that a provision be inserted that makes it clear that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is the sole statutory basis for domestic surveillance. This language was needed to remove any ambiguity. We cannot have any President inventing other claims for secret, warrantless surveillance. The bill also provides additional resources to both the executive and judiciary branches for processing FISA applications and orders. The bill increases the number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judges from 11 to 15, provides additional personnel to both the FISC and government agencies responsible for making and processing FISA applications, creates an electronic filing, sharing, and document management system for handling this highly classified data, and mandates training for all government personnel involved in the FISA process. All of this will help modernize and streamline the FISA application approval process. Finally, the bill requires the Bush administration to ``fully inform'' Congress on all surveillance programs conducted since 9/11. It's outrageous that the Bush Administration has continued to stonewall this Congress over documents for the one program it has acknowledged. If we're to do our job of oversight, we need all the facts about past and current surveillance programs, and this provision will help us get those answers. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will quickly pass the RESTORE Act, and I call upon the President to end his veto threats and work with Congress to bring America's surveillance activities into compliance with the Constitution. President Bush has no inherent Constitutional authority to spy on our own citizens in the name of national security. If the President is serious about passing a law that allows us to protect our citizens from all enemies--foreign and domestic--he will sign this bill.