Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my sincere sadness at the extreme loss of life suffered today by the people of Spain after the worst terrorist attack in that nation's history. The people of central New Jersey know what it feels like to lose loved ones to an act of terrorism. We lost so many of our neighbors on the attacks of September 11, 2001. On behalf of my constituents, I stand now in solidarity with the people of Spain. We are reminded by today's carnage that senseless acts of terror continue to afflict innocent people around the world whether they live in Madrid, Istanbul, New York, or Baghdad. We are reminded today that no nation is immune to the threat of terrorism. I hope that today's attack will send a signal to all of us that we must remain vigilant in the face of terrorism and that we must continue to work closely with all nations around the world to destroy Al-Qaeda and its terrorist allies. We cannot avoid the thought that this attack happened because Spain offered assistance to the U.S. in fighting terrorists around the world. I'm sure the U.S. Government will offer whatever assistance it can to help the Spanish people who are suffering and to find and arrest the savage culprits of this crime.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of India on their 55th celebration of Republic Day. It was on this day in 1950 that India adopted its Constitution and became a modern sovereign state. Enshrined in that constitution are the same ideals of equality for all citizens, universal suffrage for those over 18, and the freedoms of speech, association and religion that we hold dear in the United States. I am pleased to represent central New Jersey's Indian Americans in the U.S. House of Representatives and to be a member of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans. It is with pleasure today that I express my praise for India's commitment to democracy. India's struggle for independence cost many lives, but also united Indians of many peoples. We honor those, especially Mohandas Mahatma Ghandi, who struggled for India's independence. Ghandi's non-violent form of resistance has set an example to all of us around the world. Freedom can be achieved through peaceful protest. India's leaders are currently working to broker peace with Pakistan and I commend them for their efforts to end this horrible conflict through peaceful negotiations. India adopted its Constitution and swore in its first president, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, only 894 days after the withdrawal of the British Empire's forces. Today, India can be proud to hold the title of the world's largest democracy as it prepares for upcoming elections in April. When I made my first trip to India in 1977, it was just after the lifting of the Emergency. At the time, India was facing a challenge to its democratic institutions. As the Indian people proved later that year by voting out Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had temporarily suspended the Indian Constitution during the Emergency period, they were resilient democrats. I am always impressed with India for the remarkable dexterity with which its people make democracy work in a country of such incomparable diversity and size. The United States may be the world's oldest democracy, but India is by far the world's largest. I believe that the rest of the world, including the United States, has something to learn from India and its democratic accomplishments. I am pleased to see India and the U.S. working so closely together. Each year for the past several years, U.S.-India relations have advanced to higher and higher plateaus. India has been an outspoken supporter of our Nation's war on terror. India and her people have endured terrorist attacks and, like the American people, they are resolute in fighting against future threats. In New Jersey, I have never felt too far away from India because I have the good fortune to have so many wonderful Indian-American neighbors. I look forward to continuing to represent the Indian American community of central New Jersey and to seeing India's democracy continue to flourish in the years to come.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, Clean Ocean Action, an organization dedicated to the protection of the coast of New Jersey and Long Island, celebrated its 20th anniversary on February 26th. When COA was formed, there were eight ocean dumping sites off the coast of New Jersey and Long Island where all kinds of pollutants were dumped--sewage, dredge spoils, industrial waste, even toxic waste. COA made it their primary goals to close these sites and find environmentally-friendly alternatives to ocean dumping. This was the time when New Jerseyans were first becoming aware of the serious consequences of ocean dumping--the impacts on marine life, the fishing industry, tourism, and the health and safety of the countless residents and visitors who enjoy the Jersey shore every summer. Thirteen years later, COA achieved these goals when then-Vice- President Gore announced an agreement closing the dumping sites and creating the Historic Area Remediation Site to remediate the effects of the dumping. COA, under the noteworthy leadership of Cindy Zipf, has not rested on its laurels, however. Today, they continue to take steps to protect the shore from leading beach cleanup efforts to lobbying Congress. I worked closely with them to fight against provisions slipped into the energy bill that would reverse the progress made towards keeping our shores clean. COA marked its 20th anniversary by announcing an effort to create a Clean Ocean Zone off the coasts of New Jersey and Long Island, permanently protecting the ocean that is so valuable to New Jersey residents. I salute COA for 20 years of hard work and effective work, and I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of my colleagues this success towards cleaning up our shore areas. Now is not the time to reverse the progress of the last two decades.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this body passed the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 1561). H.R. 1561 will begin outsourcing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's patent search function and it will increase the fees for inventors to obtain a patent or trademark. Yesterday's passage of H.R. 1561 will also lead to decreased efficiency and accountability in the process of granting patents and trademarks. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the responsibility to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' H.R. 1561 increasingly shifts this function out of the hands of the federal government and delegates more of it to private commercial entities. What's more, due to the ambiguous language of the bill, these jobs could end up overseas. Congress should defend the integrity of the U.S. Constitution and the employment prospects of American workers. As my colleagues may know, I hold a patent for a system to generate solar energy. That experience sensitized me to the reality that many of the most ground-breaking ideas and products that need patent or trademark protection come from small inventors or college or university laboratories. Therefore, it is vital that the financial hurdles for application and receipt of patents do not exceed the means of these inventors. H.R. 1561 would increase the fees that small entities must pay in order to obtain a patent or trademark, and the impending outsourcing will force the fees up again in the future. That burden will slow innovation. I recognize the need to pass meaningful legislation that will help the USPTO to alleviate their backlog of pending patent and trademark applications, in order to efficiently serve the innovators that keep this nation moving forward. Rather than achieving this worthy goal, this bill will make it more difficult for American inventors to obtain the legal protection that they and their products deserve. As much as I would like to see the work of the USPTO improved, I could not support H.R. 1561.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize that yesterday was the 132nd anniversary of the founding of Yellowstone National Park, the world's first national park and the crown jewel in America's national park system and the model of parks for the world. The most remarkable thing about Yellowstone is that it offers modern- day visitors a chance to experience the same sense of wonder and disbelief that the first European American explorers did back in the late 1860s. Although Yellowstone has been a model for parks around the world, no other country has the splendor that Yellowstone has. These explorers came upon such astonishing sights that they were skeptical that anyone would actually believe their descriptions of the area we now know as Yellowstone National Park. They though that their tales of gushing geysers, bubbling mud pots, towering waterfalls, and dramatic canyons would be dismissed as the fantastical delusions of people who had spent too much time out in the wilderness. Thankfully, their stories did eventually capture the nation's imagination, and on March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law a bill establishing Yellowstone as our first national park, comprising an area of approximately two million acres near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River. Yellowstone, which preceded the founding of the National Park Service by 44 years, has become the image of national parks across the country and throughout the world. I have visited Yellowstone myself from time to time during different seasons and am always astounded by its spectacular beauty. Old Faithful, the reliable geyser that represents the park for most Americans, is but one of the 300 geysers there, which account for two- thirds of the world's geysers. Yellowstone boasts a total of over 10,000 thermal features, including bubbling mudpots, steaming fumaroles, and brightly colored hot springs. These thermal features are fueled by a giant volcanic caldera, the remains of a tremendous eruption of tens of thousands of years ago. Surrounding this caldera are majestic peaks rising over 11,000 feet. Within the caldera is Yellowstone Lake, the largest freshwater lake above 7000 feet in North America. Nearby, the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone astounds visitors to nearly the same degree as the canyon that shares its name further south in Arizona. In the canyon and across the backcountry are Yellowstone's famous waterfalls, numbering around 290 and in some cases towering over 300 feet. Yellowstone is also home to large populations of some of the animal species that best represent the United States. The only remaining wild American bison herd makes its home in the park, accompanied by countless elk. Bald eagles nest throughout the park, and the endangered gray wolf has been reintroduced, becoming a real treat for wildlife watchers. In short, Yellowstone is a place where fantasy becomes reality, where some of the most majestic lands in the world have become the embodiment of America's natural splendor. It's no accident that the park gets around three million visitors every year, coming from just about every one of our districts. I urge all of my colleagues to visit this park if they have not already had the chance, and to remember the legacy and value of this spectacular parcel of land. It will be a reminder of why Congress has designated Yellowstone and other natural parks for future generations to enjoy. Mr. Speaker, protecting Yellowstone and all of our natural parks is a noble and patriotic duty. These parks are repositories of our national heritage and preserve our most precious natural and cultural resources. Too often, unfortunately, the Park Service has found itself lacking the funds it needs to protect and ensure visitor access to everything from Revolutionary and Civil War sites to the most majestic public lands across the country. NPS is currently facing a $600 million shortfall in operations alone, to say nothing of a continuing maintenance backlog that is approaching $5 billion. As we move through this legislative session and begin the process of determining our funding priorities, I hope my colleagues will remember our national parks and see fit to support them and the men and women who work there.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this rule and to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill unnecessarily redefines a crime. Why? Not to deter or prevent violence. It does not do that. Not to ameliorate the effect of violence. It does not do that. Not to help the victims of violence. It does not do that. There clearly is an ulterior motive here, a different agenda that the supporters have. There is no question that the loss or harm to a woman and her fetus is absolutely devastating, and those who injure or kill a pregnant woman or her fetus should be punished, and families should have appropriate redress for their loss, but this bill would not accomplish that. This bill seeks to create a unique Federal criminal offense for acts that cause injury or death to an unborn fetus. Tellingly, it does not create any comparable offense for killing or injuring the woman bearing the fetus. I think that makes it clear that the real purpose here is not to protect the victims of violence, not to prevent violence, but to give the fetus equal legal status to the mother and thus to undermine the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade. I challenge the supporters of this bill to be logically consistent and support the substitute permitted under this rule, the Motherhood Protection Act, which would severely punish crimes against pregnant women without unnecessarily engaging in the abortion debate. I would also remind my colleagues that protecting pregnant women is just one part of combating all forms of violence that threaten women across this Nation. We must renew our commitment to this issue and focus our efforts on passing measures that are aimed at protecting all women from violence, and here I challenge the supporters again to fully fund programs such as the Violence Against Women Act that actually provide lifesaving services to battered women. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1997.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. This bill will protect the integrity of the Social Security program for the nearly eight million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own financial affairs and must have a ``representative payee'' designated to receive and manage their benefits on their behalf. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to discuss an important Social Security issue that this bill fails to address, the Government Pension Offset (GPO). This unjust, arcane law prevents government retirees from collecting a government pension and the Social Security benefits entitled to them through their spouse's history of employment. The GPO current affects 335,000 people, a number that is growing by 15,000 each year. The people hit hardest by the GPO are State and municipal workers. Public employees like educators, police officers, and firefighters should not suffer a penalty for dedicating their lives to public service. Take, for example, a teacher who has worked for 30 years and with her husband has managed to raise a family. After her husband passes away, the law prevents her from receiving most, if not all, of the Social Security benefits that her husband earned and rightfully belong to her. She would lose the benefits simply because she worked for the government making a modest salary. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Buck McKeon has introduced H.R. 594, which would address the Government Pension Offset issue. Even though the bill currently has 285 cosponsors, the House leadership has failed to bring it up for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I have heard countless people say that teachers, police officers and firefighters deserve to be paid better for their public service. Fixing the GPO is our chance to say thanks to these selfless individuals whose work has helped make this country what it is today. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to urge the leadership to bring this issue to the floor during this session of Congress.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the Community Services Block Grant is a relatively small but important program for more than 1,000 communities and millions of families nationwide, but this amendment is critical because without it a potentially good bill is rendered un-American and unacceptable. The CSBG purpose is to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that fight the causes of poverty, such as unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition, and lack of educational opportunities. The unifying characteristic of CSBG programs is that they provide people and communities with the resources and skills they need to become self- sufficient. It is good legislation. Communities in my 12th District of New Jersey, such as Franklin Township, Somerset County, Trenton, and North Brunswick use CSBG funds to help individuals obtain employment skills, gain access to home ownership and health insurance. It is used for new housing facilities, economic development, job creation, and public service improvements, such as safer streets. I am glad to see that this legislation, the Improving Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003, as reported, strengthens and improves the CSBG program. It enhances accountability at the local, State and Federal levels. It gives extra emphasis to CSBG's top priority, reducing poverty. I would strongly support the provisions of the reported legislation, and I believe that they would help improve the quality of services to low-income individuals and families so that communities can more effectively move people towards self-sufficiency, with the exception that this, as reported, is un-American. Because H.R. 3030 fails to remove provisions in law that allow discrimination against beneficiaries of services based on religion, and permits religious organizations receiving funds to discriminate in employment, I must oppose this bill. Now, I agree with the majority that these provisions have existed in current law for 5 years, but that is not reason for us to continue to condone the continuation of discriminatory policies. For years, faith-based organizations have helped many Americans, but they should not be permitted to turn away qualified individuals from a federally funded job because they are Christian or because they are Jewish or because they are Muslim or because they have any particular faith. It would be wrong to discriminate when hiring. It was wrong, it is wrong, to discriminate when hiring, and it should remain wrong to discriminate when hiring when using taxpayer dollars for that hiring. The social services of CSBG are not inherently religious activities. It is appropriate to use taxpayer dollars to conduct these activities. Organizations that are faith-based and that are motivated by their religious faith can do these things, even using Federal funds. But they should not use the taxpayer dollars to discriminate. The work they do builds communities. The work funded by CSBG is to build communities. Let us not fund practices that tear apart our communities. I ask my colleagues to support the Woolsey amendment. And if it does not pass, I ask them to oppose the bill.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of these Americans, who are constituents, our neighbors, and the people who have entrusted us with the care of our Nation, it is essential that we renew their unemployment benefits, and it is essential that we do it now. Middle-class Americans cannot sustain the American dream while not receiving any income for 3 or 4 months, or even longer. We owe them this continued assistance until this economy can provide them with jobs they desperately want again. An estimated 375,000 unemployed individuals are exhausting their regular unemployment benefits in January without qualifying for any further assistance--and are receiving neither a paycheck or unemployment benefits. In New Jersey, the 99,000 unemployed workers expected to exhaust their regular benefits without being able to receive further assistance will be the second highest on record for the months of January through June. Mr. Chairman, the Congress must make the plight of middle-class America its number one concern. Without the temporary extension of unemployment benefits under TEUC, Americans will continue to struggle to pay the bills in this still-weak job market. By extending the unemployment benefits for an additional 6 months, it will grant more time for unemployed Americans to find new jobs. While experts could explain various aspects about the business and economic cycles and how companies will begin hiring again in the future, this does not solve the present problem of how bread winners are going to pay bills and how food is going to get into the stomachs of children so that when they go to school, their day is spent learning and not focusing on the pain in their gut. Mr. Chairman, the American public needs the Miller amendment so I ask my colleagues to pass the Miller amendment.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the discovery of ricin in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and the resulting closure of all three Senate office buildings, is an unfortunate and disturbing reminder of our mail system's vulnerability to terrorism. As the Representative of the 12th District of New Jersey, my concern on this matter is heightened because of our area's direct experience with the anthrax attacks of 2001. At least one of the anthrax-tainted letters mailed to Capitol Hill was sent from a postal drop box in Princeton, New Jersey and processed at a sorting facility in Hamilton, New Jersey. Anthrax spores were also discovered in my Washington, D.C. office, which resulted in my congressional office--and several others--being relocated for three months. I rise today to express my profound disappointment that our federal government seems to have learned very little from these incidents. I am concerned that the United States Postal Service (USPS) has not received adequate funding to protect postal employees and the general public from the risk of bio-terrorism in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget that President Bush delivered to Congress two days ago. Specifically, I am troubled that the USPS was denied emergency preparedness funding in Fiscal Year 2004, and would be denied again in the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request. This continued lack of funding leaves the United States Postal Service ill-equipped to defend against bioterrorism. A safe postal delivery system is critical not only for our homeland security, but also for our economic security. Only sustained, significant investment in our postal system will ensure that we are prepared to prevent, detect, and respond to bio-terrorism through the mail. I will be writing to President Bush to reconsider this oversight and provide the USPS with funding for this important initiative.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give voice to millions of unemployed American workers. The citizens I speak of are the very people who keep the United States of America open for business each day. However as we are gathered here today, these people are, desperately searching for work so that they may provide food for their families, keep a roof over their heads, and save money to send their children to college and one day enjoy a well-deserved retirement. In December we failed to aid these people by not extending the benefits provided under Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) for millions of unemployed citizens, we now have the chance to succeed where we failed before. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these Americans, who are our constituents, our neighbors, and the people who have entrusted us with the care of our nation, it is essential that we renew their unemployment benefits, and it is essential that we do it now. At the close of last year we failed to renew these benefits under TEUC for as many as 450,000 unemployed workers and instead of families spending quality time with each other, exchanging gifts, and rejoicing in the new year, the bottoms of Christmas trees were left bare and the countdown to the New Year was a time for fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters to hope 2004 might be better. Middle class Americans cannot sustain the American dream while not receiving any income for three or four months, or even longer. We owe them this continued assistance until this economy can provide them with jobs they desperately want again. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must make the plight of middle class America its number one concern. Without the temporary extension of unemployment benefits under TEUC, Americans will continue to struggle to pay the bills in this still-weak job market. By extending the unemployment benefits for an additional six months, it will grant more time for unemployed Americans to find new jobs. While experts could explain various aspects about the business and economic cycles and how companies will begin hiring again in the future, this does not solve the present problem of how bread winners are going to pay bills and how food is going to get into the stomachs of children so that when they go to school, their day is spent learning and not focusing on the pain in their gut. Mr. Speaker, to this end I submit that we not hesitate in renewing unemployment benefits and spend the taxpayers dollars on the soundest investment of all, the American worker. Its long past time that these unemployed workers get the benefits they deserve and time for us as a Congress to vote to restore the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Henrietta Backer, known as Heny to friends and neighbors, for her service to the Princeton community. More than 20 years ago, Heny Backer came to Princeton to visit her daughter at the university. The town was fortunate that day: she was so impressed that she and her husband, Bernie, decided to relocate there. Heny has since made an indelible mark on the Princeton community. Highly principled, she is an inspiration to those around her and has earned our heartfelt appreciation. Heny Backer has served in many capacities on a number of community organizations, and in each case she has done so with fairness and a civic-minded spirit. Her unending energy marked her tenure as a commissioner of the Housing Authority for the Borough of Princeton, where she sought to make affordable housing available to all who seek it. Heny's commitment to finding fair, decent, peaceful solutions to the world's problems has made her one of the indispensable volunteers for the Coalition of Peace Action. Her leadership resulted in the borough's formal expression of disappointment in our country's decision to take preemptive action against Iraq. Through her efforts, the Princeton Community Democratic Organization (PCDO) was reinvigorated. Under her leadership, the political dialogue of the community was elevated in substance and integrity. Due to her tireless dedication to addressing the many challenges our community faces in a fair and respectful manner, she was elected to serve as both the president of the PCDO and chair of the Princeton Municipal Democratic Committee. She continues to serve on both organizations today. Heny Backer has contributed significantly to the life of her community and to the positive nature of its political dialogue. For me, Heny has been a source of good advice and good ideas for which I am ever grateful. She has earned our heartfelt appreciation for her efforts. I ask my colleagues to join me in giving her this recognition.-

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, six months after a syndicated columnist disclosed the identity of a CIA employee, calling her a CIA ``operative,'' the White House and the Department of Justice have yet to find and hold accountable the person or persons who leaked her name to the press. Congress and the men and women of our intelligence community deserve answers. I am today introducing a privileged resolution of inquiry to request that President Bush, the U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense provide this Congress with factual information in their possession relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame as a covert employee of the CIA. I am pleased to be joined by U.S. Representatives Eshoo, Reyes, Tauscher, Larson, Turner, Spratt, Moran, Waxman, Lantos, and Conyers as original cosponsors of this timely and important legislation. If passed, this resolution will provide Congress with the information it needs to determine independently the facts surrounding this breach of confidentiality, to assess its effects on U.S. national security and intelligence gathering, and to determine whether legislative action is needed to prevent leaks of this nature in the future. I submit that protecting our Nation's intelligence community, and all who serve in it, is vital to our national security and to the safety of all Americans. At this time, a resolution of inquiry is the best tool at the disposal of the House to determine how this leak occurred and who perpetrated it. I am disappointed by the absence of public outrage among senior officials in our intelligence community and in this administration. They should be standing in solidarity with Ms. Plame and the other Americans who serve in our intelligence community, and they should be speaking out against anyone who would presume to unilaterally decide whose identity should be made public. Their silence is deplorable. Protecting our country and the men and women who protect and defend us is not solely the responsibility of one branch of our Government. It is a shared responsibility under our system of checks and balances. Our Government--including both the Congress and the executive branch--has a duty to ensure that all who work within the U.S. intelligence community are not compromised and that all U.S. intelligence agencies are able to effectively do their jobs and protect the American people from more terrorist attacks and other threats. Some have used the weak excuses that this person's identity was already known by some people or that her work was not very important. These excuses are outrageous. Any unauthorized disclosure potentially puts our agents and our sources and their families at risk and thus weakens our ability to protect Americans. At the least, I hope that this resolution will exert pressure on the ongoing Department of Justice investigation. I fully support the investigation, but there is no reason why it should be taking so long to get any answers at all. This investigation should be among the Department's highest priorities. Over the longer term and after we have determined the origin of this leak, I believe that this Congress has an on-going responsibility to examine thoroughly and oversee how our intelligence community uses human sources, human case officers, and various kinds of cover, and how we go about protecting them. We simply cannot accept the public disclosure of an undercover intelligence operative. We must understand what happened and search for ways to prevent it from happening in the future. The effectiveness of our intelligence agencies demands nothing less.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, after a series of failures in trying to land on Mars, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Spirit has successfully landed on the red planet. Considering all the electromechanical systems, computer software, and retro-rockets that had to faithfully operate, the success of landing the spacecraft despite uncooperative Martian winds and dust is a testimony to the excellence, grit and determination of a host of planners, engineers and scientists at the laboratory. In a continuation of these successes, last Thursday, Spirit successfully rolled off the lander and onto the Martian surface. In the meantime the Spirit's twin is scheduled to land halfway around Mars on Sunday, January 25. The mere thought of the possibility of two rovers exploring Mars is both exciting and a testimony to our Nation's scientific and technical vitality. Spirit and Opportunity are just two of the many offspring of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that have been sent on exploration voyages over the past four decades, visiting every known planet except Pluto with a few looking out into the universe and beyond our local planets. In 1930, with the rise of Hitler and anti-Semitism, Theodore von Karman left Aachen, Germany and accepted an invitation by the California Institute of Technology to come to Pasadena to lead an aeronautical laboratory, later named the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. At age 81 he was the recipient of the first National Medal of Science, bestowed in a White House ceremony by President John F. Kennedy. A crater on the Moon is named in his honor. Over seven decades, JPL has maintained this dignified position and upheld the reputation of von Karman's laboratory as world leader in engineering, science and planetary exploration.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Record remarks I gave this morning at the unveiling of a United States Postage Stamp in honor of Paul Robeson. He was an impressive American, and these remarks capture my thoughts and feelings on his remarkable, yet tragic, life and accomplishments. I am honored to be here to recognize Paul Robeson and also to recognize his son Paul Robeson, who himself has done so much for America. This is just a stamp. But I can hardly express how important this is to me personally. You see, I grew up in the 1950's. My town was probably no more racially segregated than most of America, and anti- communism was no more at a fever pitch than anywhere else. But I never had heard of Paul Robeson. When, as a young man, I learned about Paul Robeson I got all his recordings and watched all his movies and read all about him. I marveled at his voice, his intellect, his optimism. Several times as a student I even considered trips to meet him, just to show up at his door and ask to speak with him. But I was told he was in seclusion. I did not know what I would do if I met him. Say I admired him? Apologize for his mistreatment? As a kid I did not think I could really do anything. Maybe I wanted to know how he got the courage to sacrifice his career by fighting for, what he called, his people. Mostly I just wanted to meet the person who more than anyone else in America represented for me what had to be fixed. How could this be? Not how could so much talent be in one person. Rather, how could a talent of this magnitude, a person of such dignity and such accomplishment be rubbed out of the history books? A great actor, singer, writer, linguist and scholar. And how could America, sports crazy America, fail to mention a note-worthy all-American football player. One of the great talents of our age. How much more he offered than so many of the shallow, faintly-talented people whom we celebrate in the papers, on television, and, yes, even on postage stamps. His autobiography and manifesto was not reviewed in a single main-stream publication. I felt cheated. Even as a boy, I considered myself very well informed about the world and about America. How did I not know about his role in the American labor movement? How could the knowledge of Paul Robeson be kept from me. Yes, I felt cheated and angry. Even more, I felt America had been cheated. Why was he denied to my generation? And worst of all, America had cheated itself. It was painful. In the person of Paul Robeson I saw the cost of racism and the cost of patriotic fear. It wasn't just a few vicious bigots. It wasn't just some anti-communist know-nothings. It was the official policy of my country to commit this injustice. Our country, Paul Robeson's and mine. And it was happening to the person who had popularized the song ``The House I Live In'' with the words ``. . . the right to speak my mind out; that's America to me.'' Someone who had overcome racial exclusion to become one of the best-known and outwardly successful figures in the world, only to be benched. As Lloyd Brown had said, ``The spotlight was switched off . . . and a thick smokescreen was spread around him.'' I could not fix it, and I regretted deeply that I couldn't. Even if I visited him, I couldn't. What could a white kid say, standing on his doorstep? I never met him. When I heard about the decision of the commemorative stamp committee, I realized that I should bring this ceremony to Princeton, Robeson's birthplace. The irony, you say? That a white elected official would ask to bring this ceremony to Princeton, the town that Robeson himself said ``was spiritually located in Dixie'' and a home to Jim Crow? To the Princeton University Paul Robeson never could have attended? (Need I say that it hurt Princeton University more than it hurt Paul Robeson. They lost the benefit of a two-time all- American, a national-level debater, a Phi Beta Kappa and valedictorian level student, an actor and chorister unmatched in the collegiate world of the day, and they lost the bragging rights to Paul Robeson.) Yes, Princeton was where this ceremony should be. Paul Robeson said Princeton not only gave him his start; it gave him his grounding. Princeton days were, he said, his ``happier'' days. After his mother died and his father was removed from his pulpit, the people of Princeton--not so much the white people, although he had white playmates, but the close-knit African-American community--gave him ``an abiding sense of comfort and security.'' He had a Home in that Rock, don't you see? He was adopted, he said, by all of Negro Princeton. In his words: ``Hard working people, and poor, most of them, in worldly goods--but how rich in compassion! How filled with the goodness of humanity and the spiritual steel forged by centuries of oppression! There was the honest joy of laughter in these homes, folk- wit and story, hearty appetites for life as for the nourishing greens and black-eyed peas and cornmeal bread they shared with me. Here in this hemmed-in world where home must be theater and concert hall and social center, there was a warmth of song. Songs of love and longing, songs of trials and triumph, deep-flowing rivers and rollicking brooks, hymnsong and ragtime ballad, gospels and blues, and the healing comfort to be found in the illimitable sorrow of the spirituals. Yes, I heard my people singing. . . . And there was something else, too, that I remember from Princeton. Something strange, perhaps, and not easy to describe . . . People claimed to see something special about me . . . that I was fated for great things.'' Princeton, he says, gave him what he needed to succeed, what every child needs. Yes, what every child needs, a sense of comfort and security, and a sense of possibility and expectation. We could still give that to every child, couldn't we? He needed all the strength that was bred into him and more. Years later he was summoned before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and he was asked, by someone like me, I regret to say, why, if he liked Russia so much on his repeated visits, why didn't he just stay there, he replied in a most imposing voice, ``Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?'' I suppose the Princeton and Somerville schools did not teach the Dale Carnegie method back then. Paul Robeson began his autobiography with the sentences, ``I am a Negro,'' and too, ``I am an American.'' When he said that blacks should not fight the USSR, I'm sure he meant that the fight for freedom begins at home. Then, declaring him a security risk the government, our government, revoked his passport--even at a time that we were castigating China and Russia for not allowing their citizens freedom of travel. And as we castigated them for police-state tactics at the same time that we tailed Robeson, tapped his phone, opened his mail, and denied him his livelihood. Why? Out of irrational fear. Out of ill-considered patriotic fervor. Out of, yes, unexamined fear of terrorism. Paul Robeson must have scared the daylights out of America. It wasn't just white America; it was Jackie Robinson who spurned him, and the NAACP, and the leaders of the civil rights movement, and the labor leaders he had championed. Robeson said maybe his watch was fast. Explaining that he was ahead of his time is small consolation. How that must have hurt! The painful isolation, after he had broken the ground, from which a successful civil rights movement grew. Yes, we can take satisfaction in knowing that the people here in New Jersey made Paul Robeson what he was. Then, too, we must remember we represent what brought him down, what blacklisted him, what crushed his optimism--ordinary Americans. We let it happen. We did it to ourselves. A stamp does not make it all right. A stamp does not absolve us of our collective responsibility and regret. Too many lives were ruined by the hatred of racism and the fearful excesses of the Cold War. Still, this stamp helps a lot. This is First Class postage! This is official U.S. postage. Every time we affix one of these stamps to a letter--a stamp depicting Paul Robeson with cheerful dignity--let's draw a lesson or two. First, just as the people of Princeton once did for a boy, let's show young boys and girls that there is something special about them; that they can do great things. And second, let us remember that we as a government, we as the media, and we who comprise conventional wisdom can be wrong, painfully wrong. Let us guard against that possibility of self-deception in a skewed view of the world. The Cold War and fear of communism are past, you say? Let us remember that simplistic tests of patriotism appear from time to time in our history and in an unthinking love for our country we can crush the very greatness of America.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to revise and extend my remarks. I submit to the Record the remarks of Dr. Valerie Smith, the Woodrow Wilson Professor of Literature and director of the Program in African- American Studies at Princeton University. Dr. Smith delivered this speech yesterday, January 19, 2004, in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As you will see, the speech draws heavily on the words of Dr. King himself. I venture to say that Dr. King's words will continue have more lasting value than anything we say here on the House floor today. [Keynote Speech, Jan. 19, 2004] In Memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reiterate the importance of my ``Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003'' to the integrity of democracy in the United States. Although I am deeply gratified by the substantial groundswell of support among my colleagues and cosponsors, I regret that this session draws to a close for the year without this critical piece of legislation having been meaningfully addressed by this Chamber. When I introduced the Voter Confidence Act in May of this year, I did so without cosponsors. I had been told that no one wanted to re-open HAVA. I had been told that adding paper records back into the electoral process would generate fraud. I had been told that access for the disabled and voter verified paper trails were mutually exclusive--you can have one or the other, but you can't have both. I had been told that there is no complaint that existing electronic voting machines are not functioning properly. But it seemed obvious to me, given that all computers are subject to error, failure and tampering, that computers upon which elections are conducted would be as well. I also believed that voter verification mechanisms, just like voting machines themselves, could readily be made accessible to disabled voters. Although I supported HAVA, and continue to support the many groundbreaking improvements it ushered forth, I was troubled to see that HAVA funding fueled an unintended consequence--the wide-scale purchase of unauditable electronic voting machines--and threatened the very integrity of the electoral system in the United States. Earlier this session, I introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act to enhance HAVA's accessibility requirements, to increase participation among all voters, and to restore faith in the electoral system and in the government itself by giving voters a means by which they themselves could be certain that their votes are being counted. From the moment my press release announcing the bill was released, my telephone began to ring with calls from voters around the country expressing their profuse thanks. Within a week, one of my local metropolitan papers ran an editorial saying that the bill ``proposes urgent and sensible measures to preserve the sanctity of the ballot'' and suggested that Congress ``shift into high gear and enact this legislation without delay.'' Within two or three weeks, I was joined on the bill by eight of my Colleagues. In another week or two, I was joined by eight more. More editorials ran--New York Newsday said that although ``many election officials . . . resist the paper trail idea . . . the purpose of voting reform isn't to make life easier for election clerks. It is to make elections fairer and restore the frayed confidence of voters--the people who are supposed to count most of all.'' The Bismark Tribune asserted: ``One thing the committee should insist on is a paper `receipt' that lets the voter check his work and is available for a re-count, if necessary.'' The Star News of North Carolina opined: ``By the time this is over, we might be nostalgic for hanging chads. At least they were cheap. It turns out those expensive high-tech voting systems based on computers can be stuffed like ballot boxes in Chicago. My, what a surprise. . . .'' Most recently, the New York Times said, ``[T]he public must feel secure that each vote is counted. At this stage, a voter-verified paper trail offers the public that necessary security.'' And as we all know, this is not just a matter of opinion. A team of computer scientists from Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities released a report in July disclosing ``stunning, stunning flaws'' in the security of certain electronic voting machines widely in use, precipitating an avalanche of further studies and reviews, raising further red flags among jurisdictions considering new equipment purchases, and generating further uncertainty and concern about the use of privately owned and controlled voting equipment that produces results that cannot be meaningfully audited in any way. Reports of irregularities on voting machines abound, but I will mention just one. In a recent election conducted in Boone County, Indiana, a ``computer glitch'' reportedly ``spewed out impossible numbers.'' In a jurisdiction that had fewer than 19,000 registered voters, 144,000 votes were reported. The County Clerk said she ``just about had a heart attack.'' Although a ``corrected'' count of about 5,300 votes was eventually produced, how can we know it was in--fact correct? The fact is, without an independent voter verified paper trail, we can never know. The New York Assembly passed a law in June mandating voter verified paper trails. The State of Illinois passed a similar law in August. In November, the Secretary of State of California mandated voter verified paper trails. Legislation requiring voter verified paper trails is also pending in Maine, and I have been told that similar bills are imminently to be introduced in Maryland and Virginia. Broad coalitions of public interest groups are now taking definitive action to lobby in favor of voter verified paper trails. The Communications Workers of America passed a resolution in August stating that the CWA ``endorse and support the use of only DRE and `touch screen' machines with the ability to provide the voter with a view of a paper ballot that is stored and available for audits.'' A large New York-based coalition including at least five disability advocacy groups issued a statement in the fall urging that ``New voting machines should provide a `voter- verifiable paper audit trail' and incorporate `data-to-voice' technology to ensure full access by all.'' Grass roots organizations lobbying for my bill and for voter verified paper trails are forming all over the country. The resolution in favor of voter verifiable audit trails posted by Verifiedvoting.org has more than 1,000 endorsers. An online petition in favor of my Voter Confidence Act which had 50 signatures in July has more than 4,000 signatures now. An online petition in favor of voter verified paper trails sponsored by Martin Luther King III, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Investigative Journalist Greg Palast has more than 60,000 signatures. I introduced this legislation because I think that if we don't have an election system that voters can trust, voter participation will decline and our democracy will deteriorate. Citizens from all over the country, sharing this concern, have spoken out, indeed shouted out, that we should act. The extent and depth of discussion on the Internet and in town meetings is striking. This is not a partisan issue. I stand today with 90 Members from both sides of the aisle, who are just as deeply concerned about the integrity of our electoral system as I am. They are just as deeply troubled by the prospect of private ownership and control of the vote count as I am. They have heard from and responded to the concerns of their constituents about insecure, unauditable voting equipment just as I have. Some of them have even told me that--second only to the Iraq conflict--the issue of the verifiability of election results is the one most frequently raised in public forums. And one thing that has been reiterated to me time and again--even by people who have not made their minds up on the issue--is that the issue is not going to go away. We have a responsibility to demonstrate that our democracy stands above all others in its unimpeachability. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman concluded his recent column, entitled ``Hack the Vote,'' by saying, ``Let's be clear: the credibility of U.S. democracy may be at stake.'' When the results are in after the next election, there must be no question. There must be no doubt. We must all feel certain that the voice of the people, as expressed in the voting booth, was heard. November 2004 is just around the corner. When this body reconvenes in January, I urge it to consider this legislation a top priority.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise stoday to recognize the success of twelve apprentice architects and their mentors. These twelve students from Trenton Central High School and Lawrence High School participated in an intensive summer program in which they learned architectural and design skills that allowed them to design two projects. Divided into three groups, each group prepared an original design for a warehouse and a renovation design for a building at Trenton Central High School. Then simulating a business world, they prepared proposals for each project to go to bid. These projects represent hours of hard work, dedication, collaboration and communication among students, mentors and community members. This program is a fine example of teaching practical math skills. It involves identifying a problem, developing an approach to solve it, testing that approach, and eventually implementing a solution. The students worked under the leadership of three mentor architects, Vince Myers, Harvey Myers and Bob Iamello. They were divided into three studios: Latin Architects in Action, Edgar Gonzales, Byron Zacarias, Judith Rodriques, Raykel Abreu; Professional Building Design Architects, Patrick Alvarado, Shaneeka Ingram, Edvin Zacarias, Brandon Bey; Architect Design Perfection, Leidy Toro, John Frink, Jamie Rodas, Vamey Keita. Working together as mentor and studio, each student learned many skills including design, math computation, teamwork, public speaking, critical evaluation and long-range thinking. Programs like these reflect my values about the necessity for excellent math and science education. Math is not just another subject. Math is fundamental like reading. A mathematical framework provides us the skill for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself. These are very important skills for the very complex times in which we live. I ask that all the Members join me in congratulating these 12 students and three mentors for their excellence in using mathematics to design real buildings for real life.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer keep our nation safe if we do not commit ourselves to learning the languages and cultures of critical areas around the world. The security of our troops overseas and the American people here at home demand that we act quickly to eliminate the severe shortage of critical need language professionals in this country. Inaction on this issue is not only irresponsible; it's dangerous. That's why I rise today to introduce legislation, the National Security Language Act, which would significantly expand our investment in foreign language education on the primary, secondary, and post- secondary level. Al Qaeda operates in over 75 countries, where hundreds of languages and dialects are spoken. However, 99 percent of American high school, college and university programs concentrate on a dozen (mostly European) languages. In fact, more college students currently study Ancient Greek (20,858) than Arabic (10,596), Korean (5,211), Persian (1,117), and Pashto (14) put together. We need to do more to make sure that America has the language professionals necessary to defend our national security. This cannot be done overnight. We are already years overdue. As reported by the 911 Joint Inquiry in July, our intelligence community is at 30 percent readiness in languages critical to national security. Despite this alarming statistic, we do not appear to be taking aggressive action to address this problem. When I asked a panel of intelligence experts at a recent Intelligence hearing what the federal government is doing to increase the pool of critical need language professionals, they answered with silence. Two years after the events of September 11, we are still failing to address one the most fundamental security problems facing this nation. Changing our recruiting methods alone will not solve the problem. To meet new security needs, we need to create a new domestic pool of foreign language experts and we can only do that by investing in the classroom. The National Security Language Act would expand federal investment in education in foreign languages of critical need, such as Arabic, Persian, Korean, Pashto, and Chinese. Specifically, my bill would provide loan forgiveness of up to $10,000 for university students who major in a critical need foreign language and then take a job either in the federal workforce or as a language teacher. It would provide new grants to American universities to establish intensive in-country language study programs and to develop programs that encourage students to pursue advanced science and technology studies in a foreign language. My bill would also establish grants for foreign language partnerships between local school districts and foreign language departments at institutions of higher education. And it would authorize a national study to identify heritage communities here in the United States with native speakers of critical foreign languages and make them targets of a federal marketing campaign encouraging students to pursue degrees in those languages. Just as the National Defense Education Act of 1958 created a generation of scientists, engineers, and Russian linguists to confront the enemy of that time, the National Security Language Act will give us a generation of Americans able to confront the new threats we face today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, thousands, even millions, of American workers today have their fingers, eyesight, even their lives because of the legislative work of former U.S. Senator Harrison ``Pete'' Williams of New Jersey. They will never know who they are. Millions of Americans have adequate retirement pensions or health care coverage because of the legislative work of Sen. Williams. They don't remember Pete Williams when they open their monthly benefits checks. As the author and champion of landmark legislation, Pete Williams gave the country the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which is the single most important step in workplace safety in history, and he created the Employee Benefit Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) which helped guarantee minimum benefits for all working Americans. Two years ago, former Senator Williams, who would have been 84 years old this week, died. He was retired after 4 years in this body and almost 24 years in the U.S. Senate. Since his death, neither body has given appropriate recognition to him and his contributions to America. A cloud has obscured his many great contributions. Pete Williams fought for a wide range of landmark laws to improve the quality of life for average Americans. As a member and longtime chair of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the other body across the Capitol, he brought forth the Coal Mine and Health Safety Act; increases in the minimum wage in 1966, 1974, and 1977; the Vocational Rehabilitation the Alcohol Rehabilitation Act; legislation preventing discrimination against pregnant workers; legislation preventing age discrimination; the Migrant Labor Health Act; legislation for special education; the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972; legislation for college tuition assistance for needy students; legislation protecting the rights of workers to organize; and Meals on Wheels. Let me repeat: many of these are landmarks in American history. And that is not all; Pete Williams also produced legislation providing elderly housing, open space, arts funding, and marine mammal protection, and he led or contributed to many other laws. As my colleagues here know, it is customary for the President to give a pen from an important bill signing to each legislator who played a significant role in the bill. Pete Williams had seventy Presidential pens. As a young man working in the Senate, I first watched Senator Williams debate the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was impressed by his intellect and sincerity, qualities that defined his work as a United States Senator. Sometimes called the ``Voice for the Voiceless,'' Pete Williams spoke for many Americans who never knew him--never even knew of him. He did not need to work on the Migrant Labor Act; not many of those farm workers voted. He thought of those without privilege. He created the first standing subcommittee on aging and the first standing committee on issues related to physical disabilities. I noticed back in 1963 and 1964 that Senator Williams was a man who paid attention to those who were sometimes invisible to others like him--the cafeteria workers, the pages, the elevator operators, the support staff. He was not a showboat, although New Jerseyans were so devoted to him that he was reelected with acclaim for four terms. In fact, he was the only Democrat in the state up to that time to be re-elected to the Senate. But he was not to be the ``Senator for life'' as he was sometimes called. In his fourth term in the U.S. Senate, he was implicated, along with six members of this body, in the so-called Abscam bribery sting and resigned under a cloud and served time in prison. His colleagues and historians have not known how to remember this man, how to tell his complicated story, how to commemorate his legacy--a legacy that includes what is one of the greatest legislative records for the benefit of Americans. Fighting expulsion from the Senate, Senator Williams averred his innocence and maintained that ``time, history and Almighty God [would] vindicate'' him. I hope historians will find the way to do justice to this man and his work. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described his friend and colleague Sen. Pete Williams as ``thoughtful, decent, and determined in all he did.'' Many colleagues wondered how sad a man could fall from grace. One might try to blame judgment weakened by alcohol or perhaps overzealous or dishonest federal agents or simple political vindictiveness. His is a cautionary tale for anyone in elective office or public service. The lesson is that there are always those who would take advantage of one's weaknesses. Pete Williams, author of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and the Alcohol Rehabilitation Act, learned that there was no political rehabilitation act for him. But there is a more positive lesson, too; one person who works hard and shows compassion for others can improve the lives of others. History should not lose that more positive lesson of the career of Senator Pete Willams.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the conferees of the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for their support of a food biotechnology education program. I am aware of the difficult challenges the conferees faced while crafting this bill, and I am pleased that the conferees included language in the conference report that takes us one step closer to full implementation of this program. I would like to specifically thank Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Kaptur, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Stenholm for their cooperation and assistance during this process. I hope that we can continue to work together to find funding for this much-needed education program.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the omnibus appropriations bill. While there were several important reasons for me to vote in favor of this legislations, this bill also had several deep flaws. I would like to point to several positive items that I have worked for and was able to achieve through this appropriations bill. The bill contains a $50 million increase for the Department of Education's Math and Science Partnerships, which will help bring universities and the private sector together with local school teachers to provide long term teacher training. I hope this will put us on the path of reaching the authorized level of $400 million. I am also glad to see that the conferees retained a version of the Corzine amendment, which would restore cuts in student aid by blocking the implementation of recent Department of Education changes to financial aid eligibility formulas. The Department's changes would have drastically increased the expected family contributions by underestimating their level of state and local tax payments. In fact, the Department of Education recently determined that the changes in the state and local tax allowances will cause 84,000 students to lose their Pell Grants entirely, and will reduce Pell Grants overall by $270 million. I was happy to work with Congressman Rick Keller and seventy- five other Members of Congress on a letter to Labor-HHS conferees supporting the Corzine amendment freezing those changes. I am grateful that the conferees included language to begin a program intended to provide the public with science-based evidence on the safety of foods produced with biotechnology for human consumption. I have fought on behalf of New Jersey's birth defects registry program and led a bipartisan effort by our delegation to increase funding for birth defects registries. I am therefore pleased to see that this bill does increase the overall level of birth defects funding through the CDC. Funding for birth defects is now $113 million, a rather sizeable increase of $15 million from the previous fiscal year and $26 million over the Administration's budget request. The bill also provides $1.225 billion for Amtrak, which provides critical rail service for residents in my district and throughout the Northeast. It also directs Amtrak to continue providing fare discounts to veterans and members of the military. The budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is increased $300 million over last year's level and $130 million over the budget request, bringing FY04 funding to $5.6 billion, the largest NSF budget ever. This will mean a great deal for improving funding for research and development. The bill also includes $12.1 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals for affordable housing, $810 million more than FY03 and $205 million more than the request. This will fully fund all authorized vouchers based on a 96% lease up rate and the most current cost estimates. I have heard from many constituents about their need for and support of this program. Once again however, the rhetoric from the House leadership is not being met with adequate resources for education. Congress has passed a sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, created several new programs and mandates, but we don't seem willing to provide the necessary funding. We cannot expect our schools to meet the so- called ``adequate yearly progress'' standard if we cannot provide them the resources they need to do so. While funding for ``No Child Left Behind'' programs is nominally above last year's level, it is only sufficient to cover inflation and provides local schools with no additional resources to meet federal mandates. This bill provides $7.8 billion less than the amount promised for fiscal year 2004 by the highly touted ``No Child Left Behind'' authorization. Overall funding for the Department of Education is at $55.7 billion, only $279 million above the level contained in the House-passed bill. That increase, however, includes $318 million in special, member- specific education projects. As a result, regular formula grant or merit-based programs are actually funded less than the level contained in the House bill. Further, the bill authorizes funds for a voucher program for D.C. schools. This is a poor policy decision that deprives citizens of the District of Columbia of making the decision for themselves and the school system from receiving much needed federal funding. The bill also fails to provide the resources necessary to increase students' access to higher education. The bill keeps the maximum Pell grant award at $4,050, the same as last year, even as the cost of college is going up all over the country. The omnibus bill will hurt those who have left school and are now in the workforce. A prohibition against the Labor Department's new overtime regulation was dropped entirely despite the fact that it has the support of solid majorities in both Houses. Allowing this new rule to go through will deny overtime pay to more than 8 million American workers. These are employees who rely on overtime to make ends meet, and it speaks volumes that the Republican leadership is willing to deny hard-working, middle class families that additional pay they earn. Further, I am concerned that because I opposed the House-passed bill on the principle that we cannot under-fund education and healthcare in this country, the leadership will now punish my constituents. Important projects will not be funded simply because of politics. For example, funding has been denied to naturally occurring retirement communities where the elderly can stay and receive services and E=Mc\2\, which provides important training to science teachers, will not be funded either. Mr. Speaker, I again want to say that I reluctantly support this bill in order to keep our government functioning and to fund important new initiatives. I hope that next year we will be able to work in a bipartisan manner so that we can best provide for the needs of all the Americans we proudly represent.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the final version of this legislation continues our shared bipartisan commitment to boost the income for all of our military personnel with a 4.15-percent average increase in base pay. This is an important testament to the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend America's freedom. In addition, this conference report extends several special pay provisions and bonuses for active duty personnel through December 31, 2004. It reduces the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in FY 2004 and eliminates the out-of-pocket expense completely by FY 2005. It increases the family separation allowance for service members with dependents, worldwide, from $100 per month to $250 per month for the period beginning October 1, 2003 and ending December 31, 2004. Finally, it increases the rate of special pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger, worldwide from $150 per month to $225 per month for the period beginning October 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004. While I am not satisfied with the provisions in this conference report regarding concurrent receipt for military retirees, it does provide some, overdue redress for this out-of-date policy. But on balance, I am opposing this final conference report because I fundamentally disagree with key aspects of its policy presumptions and prescriptions. On balance, it will make America less safe in an increasingly unstable world. First and most importantly, the growing reliance upon nuclear weapons that this legislation encourages makes our nation and the world less safe, not more so. Accordingly, I strongly disagree with the funding in this bill to continue work on high yield, burrowing nuclear ``bunker- busters'' that target underground military facilities or arsenals. I am equally opposed to the language in this bill that lifts the ban on research leading to low yield ``mini-nuclear weapons'' of 5 kilotons or less. Last April, I sent a letter to President Bush that was co-signed by 34 of my colleagues to convey our grave concern that he is weakening long-standing U.S. policy governing the use of nuclear as opposed to conventional weapons. I regret that we have never received a substantive reply from the President. That congressional action coupled with the examples I've cited and other provisions in this conference report further undermine the U.S. non-proliferation efforts of Republican and Democratic Presidents alike and heighten growing international fear that Bush Administration's policies are fueling a new nuclear arms race. Second, I am opposed to the blanket exemptions from our nation's environmental protection laws for the Pentagon in this bill. There is no convincing evidence that environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act hinder our military's capacity to defend our nation. But you don't have to take my word for it. Former EPA Administrator, Christine Whitman, testified to the Congress that she does not ``believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of environmental protection.'' Furthermore, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported to the Congress that the Pentagon has failed to produce any evidence that environmental laws have significantly affected our military readiness. I do not think the Pentagon or any other federal agency should be above the law. Moreover, current law already allows case-by-case environmental exemptions for the Pentagon, when they are determined to be in the national interest. Finally, this conference report also contains provisions that will be very harmful to hundreds of thousands of dedicated civilian men and women who make our Defense Department work. Last year saw the largest government reorganization in more than 3 decades with the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, affecting 170,000 federal employees. Following extensive congressional debate, Secretary Ridge was granted authority to establish a more flexible that attempted to protect basic worker rights. But this legislation will give Defense Secretary Rumsfeld broad authority to rollback worker protections for hundreds of thousands of Pentagon employees. There will be nothing to prevent agency managers from abusing their power for political advancement or engaging in discriminatory practices. Allowing managers the ability to waive such protections under the guise of national security and the need for greater flexibility is wrong. It will not make us safer. Thanks to this legislation, Secretary Rumsfeld will be able to do away with the current personnel system in the Pentagon. I am unwilling to give the Bush Administration a blank check to undo, in whole or in part, many of the civil service laws and protections that have been in place for nearly a century to safeguard against the return of an unfair patronage system. I want to be very clear. I support a strong national defense. I support modernizing our military. I support giving our troops the resources and training they need to keep our nation secure. But I cannot support this conference report which contains provisions that will take our military backwards, rather than forwards. I cannot support legislation that will re-ignite a global nuclear arms race, even as our troops in Iraq and elsewhere risk their lives every day to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I cannot support legislation that takes away the rights of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Pentagon employees Finally, I cannot support legislation that disingenuously claims that stripping away important environmental protections here at home will somehow bolster our national security.