Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. The communication which you speak of came from a mid-level official at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense has not spoken on this. This is not a statement of administration policy against this. The only formal statement comes from the Walsh report, which I quoted from earlier, which said, We endorse the use of video recordings in all camps for all interrogations. Perhaps this mid-level official at the Pentagon has not received the word that currently there are being developed improved procedures for detention and interrogation in this new administration.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I have an amendment as part of this en bloc that would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the Individual Ready Reserve who have served at least one tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan receive a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than once every 90 days to look at emotional, psychological, medical and career needs. Mr. Chairman, the military personnel from the Secretary on down, and certainly the chairman of our committee, have devoted a great deal of attention to suicide prevention recognition and treatment. This is necessary because the IRR is one place where it is just too easy to fall through the cracks. Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, enlisted in the Army in 2001, attended Fort Benning, served with the 173rd Airborne. He served in Iraq. Afterwards, he sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Maybe the VA diagnosis should have been accepted by the Army. In any case, after he was discharged, like other Army members, he still had 4 years of Ready Reserve commitment. He was called back to Iraq, served, returned to New Jersey in May of 2008 and committed suicide in September of 2008. He fell through the cracks. He had no advocate, no Army machinery to help him find his way through the system. He was literally on his own. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to address what I think is a gap in our suicide treatment efforts to deal with the Individual Ready Reserve. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation makes significant investments in two of our nation's top priorities--protecting Americans at home and in their communities, and encouraging scientific research and innovation. One of the fundamental responsibilities of our government is ensuring the safety and security of our citizens by keeping our streets and neighborhoods safe. One of the most successful crime fighting programs in recent history is the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. This bill provides $802 million overall for the program and $282 million for COPS hiring grants. When combined with the $1 billion provided in the Recovery Act, more than 7,000 police offices will be hired nationwide, 287 of those in New Jersey. Through this bill, the Office of Justice Programs will receive $2.2 billion, $155 million over the Fiscal Year 2009 level. Programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants Program will receive $529 million to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to control domestic crime as well as combat violent crimes, particular gang and drug-related criminal activity. The bill also provides $400 million ($11 million over the 2009 level) to the Office on Violence Against Women to aid in the prevention and prosecution of violent crime against women. Funds allocated by this bill will be used to strengthen the services available to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. In the area of science funding, the bill provides over $30 billion to support research at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The appropriations in this bill support the plan to double funding for basic research, as expressed by Congress in the American COMPETES Act. History shows that our country and our economy benefit when the federal government invests in our national innovation and intellectual infrastructure. This bill helps our students succeed in a global job market by investing $1 billion to support all aspects of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education from kindergarten through graduate school. It is imperative that we ensure our future generations are equipped with the skills they need to be capable participants in a scientific and technological workforce. Our economic growth is intertwined with our ability to remain competitive in the areas of Science and Technology. I want to thank the subcommittee chair, Mr. Mollohan, and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey, for demonstrating a commitment to make meaningful investments in science education to guarantee the success of our children in this global market place. I also am pleased that the bill includes over $2 billion to study global climate change, undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation. Over $700 million will be used by the National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for climate change research and educational programs. The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in my district is leading the national effort in climate change research by employing sophisticated mathematical models and computer simulations to improve our knowledge and ability to predict climatic behavior and trends. An additional investment of over $1.3 billion will be used to develop measurement techniques and for green building initiatives nationwide. It is vital to both our economic and our national security that we take whatever measures are necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that drive global warming in order to implement the full range of measures necessary to combat it. Finally, this bill also ensures that we will be able to conduct an accurate decennial Census in 2010. On top of the $1 billion that was provided for the Census in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this bill matches the President's request for $7.4 billion to conduct the largest and most advanced Census in our nation's history. Mr. Chair, I commend the committee for bringing us a bill that reflects the priorities of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to speak about technology assessment as a tool for our legislative work. This bill funds the tools that allow us to do our best on behalf of the 300 million Americans. Every issue that comes before us, virtually every issue, has some aspect of science and technology. Yet this Congress has not brought great credit to ourselves for our ability to deal with science and technology issues or to recognize emerging trends or the implications of technology. Fortunately, we do not have to reinvent a tool to help us in this. Four decades ago, Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment, a congressional support agency with a professional staff. It produced reports that were noteworthy for their factual bases, for their balanced and impartial presentations, for their nonpartisan framing, and for their forward-looking perspectives. The OTA, as it was known, functioned well for 25 years. It produced reports on such topics as retiring old cars, a program to save gasoline and to reduce emissions. That was in 1992. There were reports about bringing health care online, about electronic surveillance in the digital age, about impacts of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and on and on. The OTA study of Alzheimer's, ``Losing a Million Minds,'' became the bible for Alzheimer's policy in America. The OTA study on Social Security computer systems resulted in changes, saving hundreds of millions of dollars. The OTA study on synfuels resulted in policy changes, saving far more money than was ever spent on the Office of Technology Assessment, itself. The OTA study on the use of genetic testing in the workplace, as a tool of discrimination and bias, laid the groundwork for the excellent legislation that Representative Slaughter, the Chair of the Rules Committee, developed in the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. An OTA report on the electronic delivery of Federal services led to the Food Stamp Fraud Reduction Act, and on and on. In a fit of budget cutting, OTA's work was stopped 14 years ago with the explanation that the work could be obtained elsewhere--from other government agencies, from other congressional agencies, from interest groups, from universities, from our friends back home, from some other sources. Well, we've done the experiment. It didn't work. We have not gotten what OTA provided in the 14 years since OTA stopped operations. Stopping OTA's functioning was a stupendous act of false economy. We have not gotten the equivalent, useful, relevant work--not from think tanks, not from interest groups, not from our universities, and not from our friends back home. A former Member of Congress described stopping the funding for OTA as a congressional self-imposed lobotomy. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to provide ourselves this useful tool. Yet the rule before us today does not allow the funding of this agency. It could have been done. It could have been done for a pittance. When OTA was fully functioning, it was far less than a percent of the budget of the legislative branch.

Mr. HOLT. If I may finish a point here. So what are we missing? Well, let me postulate that, if OTA had been functioning in recent years, we could have expected helpful, relevant reports on preparing for global pandemics. Congress might well have required that there be communications in mines, such as in the Sago Mine.

Mr. HOLT. We might have had communications in the mines, such as the Sago Mine, that would have allowed the miners to get out alive. I expect that we would have had better legislation dealing with corn- based ethanol. Through OTA studies, I believe that we would have recognized the overdependence of the financial sector on mathematical models. We are missing out on a lot, Mr. Speaker. In my exasperation, I wonder why in the world Congress would deprive itself of this useful tool. I've decided that the very reason we need OTA--our discomfort with matters scientific and technological. Our inability to deal with such things is exactly what makes it difficult for us to recognize that we need it. I regret I have no time renaming to yield to the gentlelady for Florida.

Mr. HOLT. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HOLT. I appreciate the gentlelady's use of the word ``bipartisan.'' In fact, the amendment that we had hoped would be made in order today was brought forward by three Republicans and me, a Democrat. This is an agency that would benefit all in Congress. It has the support of many on both sides of the aisle. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on Friday, June 12, 2009, I was in New Jersey welcoming home the soldiers of the New Jersey Army National Guard's 50th Infantry Brigade Combat Team after their tour in Iraq and missed one vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 532 providing for further consideration of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; and ``yes'' to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (rollcall 335).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons to vote for this bill. The bill funds our withdrawal from Iraq, stop-loss compensation for our troops, a more robust pandemic flu response, extends the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights education benefits to children of members of the armed forces who die while on active duty, additional international food and refugee assistance during the current global economic crisis, and other worthy programs as well. But candidly, those issues are ancillary to the real issue before us: this vote is essentially about whether or not we support current Administration policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I hope the President does not let the country down on this. Does the Congress want to support and fund the President's new military plan? Looking back at this vote from the future, it will be seen as a vote on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Will a vote for this bill move us closer to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in southwest Asia? In this dangerous, complicated world it is never clear how to advance peace, prosperity, and justice for ourselves and the rest of the world. We Members of Congress are called on to exercise our best judgment, and in my best judgment what the President has done so far in Afghanistan is not the way forward, and the President will have to change the policy. The President is doing much good at home and abroad, and I want to support him wherever I can. However, he so far has not changed the policy in Afghanistan in a way that shows he has learned the lessons of Iraq. Nevertheless, I am willing to give him the opportunity to operate from a position of strength in forming that new policy. The chairman of the full committee has suggested that he is willing to give the President a year to turn things around in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but no more than that--an argument that has considerable merit. The problem, though, is that the President's new policy may not be new enough--not enough of a clean break with the past policy that placed excessive reliance on the use of force to solve what are by definition political problems. We should take a lesson from Iraq where it was not an American troop surge that reduced violence, but rather empowering local provincial forces. And as in Iraq, it will be a reduced American combat presence that will ultimately allow the country to find some peace. So-called surgical strikes--with inevitable civilian casualties--and remote assassinations will not remove the threat of militant extremists. Our understanding of Afghanistan is inadequate and our poor intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan limits our ability to carry out any strategy. We are moving forward in Afghanistan with too much military bravado and too little genuine understanding. Other countries are opting out of combat, not because they are cowards, but because they do not see the situation the same way. Some of us have asked for a plan of success or a plan of withdrawal before sending another wave of soldiers. We have received no such plan. As with other tragic wars without a clear plan of how to get out, I fear we may be taking a first step that will be followed by sending soldier after soldier to redeem our sunk costs. Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the Mughals, the British, the Soviets--all their military interventions in this region ended badly because they misread the people and the history of this region. I am giving the President the benefit of the doubt on this request by supporting it, with this caveat: my patience has limits. I will not support an endless military commitment in this region. Reading between the lines, I suspect I see the letter Q in Afghanistan--as in quagmire. If a year from now I do not see unambiguous indicators of success--fewer civilian casualties, Afghan and Pakistani security forces in the lead on the security mission, genuine progress in rebuilding Afghanistan's shattered infrastructure and civil institutions--I will not support further funding for operations and will support only measures that will bring our forces home, and quickly.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 529 and with deep regret that this measure is necessary. I am saddened deeply by the tragic events that took place yesterday at the United States Holocaust Museum. Especially upsetting was the loss of Mr. Stephen Tyrone Johns, who loyally served and protected those visiting the Holocaust Museum for six years. Mr. Johns was known as a warm, friendly individual who was well-respected by his colleagues. My sincerest condolences and my most heartfelt prayers are with his family and friends, whose lives have been devastated so unfairly. While yesterday's violence appears to have been the act of single individual, similar actions rooted in hatred and intolerance are not unknown to our society or our local communities. I am distressed by a recent report from the Anti-Defamation League, which indicated that my own state of New Jersey experiences the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in the country. The persistence of these unacceptable acts throughout our nation indicates that the sinister notions of anti- Semitism, racism, and intolerance continue to plague our society. The Holocaust Museum stands as a testament to the tragedy and suffering that can occur when hatred goes unchallenged and turns to violence. It is also a place to reflect upon tremendous bravery and heroism. Yesterday's events, and the sacrifices made by Mr. Johns and his loved ones, are a profound reminder that we cannot be complacent. We must remain vigilant against prejudice and work together to promote peace and tolerance in our hometowns, across the nation, and around the world. Finally, I would note that yesterday's events bring to mind the stirring call to action by President Obama at the Holocaust Days of Remembrance Ceremony in April, and I ask that they be printed in the Record in their entirety. Remarks by the President at the Holocaust Days of Remembrance Ceremony, United States Capitol, Washington, DC. The President. Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you very much. To Sara Bloomfield, for the wonderful introduction and the outstanding work she's doing; to Fred Zeidman; Joel Geiderman; Mr. Wiesel--thank you for your wisdom and your witness; Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Senator Dick Durbin; members of Congress; our good friend the Ambassador of Israel; members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council; and most importantly, the survivors and rescuers and their families who are here today. It is a great honor for me to be here, and I'm grateful that I have the opportunity to address you briefly. We gather today to mourn the loss of so many lives, and celebrate those who saved them; honor those who survived, and contemplate the obligations of the living. It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal used to kill; education that can enlighten used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life used as the machinery of mass death--a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands. While the uniqueness of the Holocaust in scope and in method is truly astounding, the Holocaust was driven by many of the same forces that have fueled atrocities throughout history: the scapegoating that leads to hatred and blinds us to our common humanity; the justifications that replace conscience and allow cruelty to spread; the willingness of those who are neither perpetrators nor victims to accept the assigned role of bystander, believing the lie that, good people are ever powerless or alone, the fiction that we do not have a choice. But while we are here today to bear witness to the human capacity to destroy, we are also here to pay tribute to the human impulse to save. In the moral accounting of the Holocaust, as we reckon with numbers like 6 million, as we recall the horror of numbers etched into arms, we also factor in numbers like these: 7,200--the number of Danish Jews ferried to safety, many of whom later returned home to find the neighbors who rescued them had also faithfully tended their homes and businesses and belongings while they were gone. We remember the number five--the five righteous men and women who join us today from Poland. We are awed by your acts of courage and conscience. And your presence today compels each of us to ask ourselves whether we would have done what you did. We can only hope that the answer is yes. We also remember the number 5,000--the number of Jews rescued by the villagers of Le Chambon, France--one life saved for each of its 5,000 residents. Not a single Jew who came there was turned away, or turned in. But it was not until decades later that the villagers spoke of what they had done--and even then, only reluctantly. The author of a book on the rescue found that those he interviewed were baffled by his interest. ``How could you call us 'good'?'' they said. ``We were doing what had to be done.'' That is the question of the righteous--those who would do extraordinary good at extraordinary risk not for affirmation or acclaim or to advance their own interests, but because it is what must be done. They remind us that no one is born a savior or a murderer--these are choices we each have the power to make. They teach us that no one can make us into bystanders without our consent, and that we are never truly alone--that if we have the courage to heed that ``still, small voice'' within us, we can form a minyan for righteousness that can span a village, even a nation. Their legacy is our inheritance. And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it? How do we ensure that ``never again'' isn't an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action? I believe we start by doing what we are doing today--by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator. In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable. My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head. He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I've heard, and wouldn't come down for six months. He was one of the liberators--someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable. And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence--all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service. My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division--the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished. The story goes that when the Americans marched in, they discovered the starving survivors and the piles of dead bodies. And General Eisenhower made a decision. He ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what had been done in their name. And he ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. Then he invited congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Some of us have seen those same images, whether in the Holocaust Museum or when I visited Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. Eisenhower said that he wanted ``to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda.'' Eisenhower understood the danger of silence. He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity--and it would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph. What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today. That's what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory. That's what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from our history. It's the very opposite of silence. But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation--it's just the beginning. We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth. We've seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war. To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened; who perpetrate every form of intolerance--racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and more--hatred that degrades its victim and diminishes us all. Today, and every day, we have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges--to fight the impulse to turn the channel when we see images that disturb us, or wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others' sufferings are not our own. Instead we have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take--whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur. That is my commitment as President. I hope that is yours, as well. It will not be easy. At times, fulfilling these obligations require self-reflection. But in the final analysis, I believe history gives us cause for hope rather than despair--the hope of a chosen people who have overcome oppression since the days of Exodus; of the nation of Israel rising from the destruction of the Holocaust; of the strong and enduring bonds between our nations. It is the hope, too, of those who not only survived, but chose to live, teaching us the meaning of courage and resilience and dignity. I'm thinking today of a study conducted after the war that found that Holocaust survivors living in America actually had a higher birthrate than American Jews. What a stunning act of faith--to bring a child in a world that has shown you so much cruelty; to believe that no matter what you have endured, or how much you have lost, in the end, you have a duty to life. We find cause for hope as well in Protestant and Catholic children attending school together in Northern Ireland; in Hutus and Tutsis living side by side, forgiving neighbors who have done the unforgivable; in a movement to save Darfur that has thousands of high school and college chapters in 25 countries, and brought 70,000 people to the Washington Mall-- people of every age and faith and background and race united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world. Those numbers can be our future--our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance, and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say ``never again.'' So today, during this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 I was in a meeting and missed the vote on the Kirk amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on the Kirk Amendment No. 19 to H.R. 2410 (Rollcall 326).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, there are many worthy and needed provisions in this legislation. It authorizes a tripling of surface transportation security funding, to $15.6 billion. It requires the Transportation Security Administration to field at least 100 canine teams, which are absolutely critical to our bomb detection efforts. The bill creates a $10 million grant program for improving security measures at general aviation airports. These and many other provisions in the bill are laudable. Unfortunately, the bill includes a provision that would allow TSA at least two more years to achieve the congressionally-mandated goal of screening 100 percent of air cargo on passenger jets. Mr. Chair, we can't keep kicking this can down the road. The traveling public has been demanding for years that we close this major airline security gap. We said we would fulfill all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We haven't. If we give TSA two more years, two years from now TSA will say ``We need more time.'' Congress has supplied the money to achieve this goal. What we need from TSA is results-oriented leadership to get the job done. The best way to finish this job is to keep the existing deadline in place, which is why I could not support this bill. I hope that we can improve this bill during any conference with the Senate or if it is included in a larger Homeland Security authorization bill by removing this two-year extension on meeting the cargo screening requirement.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work of Chairman Berman on this bill, and I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman on the issue of science and diplomacy. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to support H.R. 2410. It's a strong bill that accomplishes many good things. There is one area that it does not address explicitly, and that is the role that science can play in our diplomatic portfolio. In his recent speech in Cairo, the President reminded us all that the great ideas that have shaped our world have sprung up from every corner of the planet. Science provides a common language through which individuals from different nations and distinct cultures can communicate, cooperate, and work together toward common goals. Science can advance our diplomatic goals and diplomacy can advance science for the public good. I'm aware that the chairman is working on legislation related to enhancing science as a tool for diplomacy, and I look forward to working with the chairman on this effort. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Berman for bringing this bill to the floor. Simply stated, my amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Congress within 60 days on potential changes in treaty language and related U.S. laws that would improve other countries' compliance with The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Let me briefly explain why this amendment is necessary. In force since 1980, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was created to ensure that if a child is wrongfully removed from his or her country of habitual residence by one parent against the will of the other parent, the aggrieved parent would have an internationally recognized means of recovering the abducted child. Unfortunately, one of my constituents has come face to face with the very real limitations of the current The Hague Convention in his efforts to recover his kidnapped son from Brazil, which, like the United States, is a signatory to The Hague Convention. Mr. Chair, 5 years ago this month, Mr. David Goldman from central New Jersey began a long and painful odyssey to rescue his son from an international parental kidnapping. He had driven his wife and their 4- year-old son to the Newark Airport for a scheduled trip to visit her parents in Brazil. Mr. Goldman was to join them a few days later. But before he could, he received a phone call saying two things: His wife said their marriage was over; and if he ever wanted to see their son Sean again, he would have to sign over custody. To his credit, Mr. Goldman refused to be blackmailed. Instead, he began a long and relentless campaign to secure his son's release. Despite the clear legitimacy of Mr. Goldman's claim, the case has crawled along in Brazil's courts, bouncing back and forth for years. Mr. Goldman's wife secured a divorce in Brazil and began a new relationship with a prominent lawyer. Unfortunately, Mr. Goldman's former wife died, a fact that Mr. Goldman learned only some time later because the family had concealed that from the Brazilian courts. After my intercession and that of Mr. Smith, and with the help of the State Department, Brazilian authorities moved to have the case once again sent to Brazil's federal courts to secure visitation rights for Mr. Goldman. That effort was successful. David Goldman was able to see his son for the first time in nearly 5 years, earlier this year. Now just this month, the Brazilian federal court in Rio ordered Sean returned to Mr. Goldman. But amazingly, a Brazilian political party filed a motion with the Brazilian Supreme Court asserting that Brazil's accession to The Hague Convention was unconstitutional. I'm pleased that the Obama administration has filed a motion with the Brazilian Supreme Court seeking to have this frivolous motion dismissed, but we should do more. This outrageous delaying tactic, brought by an entity with no genuine standing in the case, has only underscored the need for the United States and other nations to examine potential changes to the convention necessary in order to prevent these kinds of cases from dragging on for years. The Hague Convention on parental child abduction should not be a justification for delay. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment so that we can receive, in a timely fashion, advice and recommendations from Secretary Clinton on measures that may be taken to help speed the resolution of cases like that of David and Sean Goldman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to recover any remaining time I have in order to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the remaining time?

Mr. HOLT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 505, condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller. On May 31, 2009, Dr. Tiller was gunned down while handing out church flyers to the congregation of the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller was murdered because he had provided comprehensive legal reproductive healthcare to women and their families. For 20 years, Dr. Tiller lived under a constant threat of violence. His clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot in both arms in 1993. He received constant death threats. Despite feeling the need to wear body armor and travel with a guard dog, he continued to provide reproductive services to women, often in the most difficult and heartbreaking circumstances. Dr. Tiller once said that he provided these services because ``Women and families are intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and ethically competent to struggle with complex health issues--including abortion,'' he said, ``and come to decisions that are appropriate for themselves.'' I could not agree more. Women must have the right to make their own reproductive choices. Regardless of one's personal feelings about abortion, we all must stand vigilant against such abhorrent and vile acts of violence. To murder someone because of disagreement with his belief system is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. It is especially disturbing that this murder took place in a church. Assaulting, intimidating, and harassing doctors and clinic employees should not be tolerated. Dr. Tiller's death is only one act of violence against those that perform abortion services. Pro-life extremists have engaged in more than 5,800 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings, and assaults, as well as more than 143,000 reported acts of disruption, including bomb threats and harassing calls. Eight abortion providers have been murdered in the United States, and another 17 have been the victims of attempted murder. It is past time that we condemn the violence and intimidation against clinics that provide legal services to women in need. I hope and pray that the friends and family members of Dr. Tiller find solace and comfort as we deal together with this historic and heartbreaking episode.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2751, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act. The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act would strengthen demand for automobiles in the United States and provide much needed relief to struggling car companies and dealerships. More commonly known as the ``Cash for Clunkers Act,'' this legislation would allow car owners to trade in their old inefficient automobiles for new more fuel efficient automobiles. The Cash for Clunkers Act could spur the sales of up to 1 million more fuel efficient cars and trucks. It would help to save jobs and shore up car dealerships, and it would help save more than 250 million gallons of gas a year. Our national car companies are struggling in the floundering economy. Since last year ago, national car sales have fallen by 34 percent. Car dealerships across the nation are closing their doors, and it is estimated that in my home state of New Jersey 8,000 jobs in the automobile industry could be lost by the end of the year. This legislation allows consumers to receive a voucher for $3,500 if they turn in their old car for a new automobile that is 4 miles per gallon more fuel efficient. Those who buy new models that are 10 miles per gallon more fuel efficient would receive a $4,500 voucher. Owners of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans that get 18 miles per gallon or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than their old vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the older vehicle. Programs like the Cash for Clunkers Act have proven effective in increasing car purchases; Germany enacted a similar measure that increased car sales by more than 20 percent. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would spur our economy and decrease dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1736, the international Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009. This bill would, formally establish a committee on the President's National Science and Technology Council to identify and support opportunities to strengthen U.S. foreign policy through cooperation in the fields of science and technology. The President recently announced new initiatives to promote science and technology partnerships between the United States and Muslim-majority countries. I applaud these efforts, and I would note that an across-the-board commitment to integrating science into our diplomatic portfolio would reap enormous benefits. We should marshal the scientific and technical capacity and expertise in our federal agencies to contribute more directly to our foreign policy goals. In conversations with experts like Dr. Norm Neureiter of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I have found strong support for a NSTC committee dedicated to planning and coordinating these kinds of interagency efforts. Such a committee would be a critical component in effectively implementing a broader vision of U.S. engagement in international science and science diplomacy. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and the administration to more fully develop robust and lasting capacity in these areas.