Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, H.R. 1400. It is appropriate that we are debating this bill today while Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the United Nations General Assembly. The current regime in Iran poses troubling security challenges to the community nations and our allies in the Middle East. The hateful and threatening comments made by the President of Iran against Israel cannot be tolerated. Further, the provocative actions taken by Iran to further their nuclear weapons program are not acceptable. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our allies. Iran must alter its dangerous course, and the United States needs to be fully involved to help bring this about. My commitment to ending Iran's nuclear weapons program is one of the reasons I was an early cosponsor of the Iran Counter Proliferation Act of 2007. H.R. 1400 is important legislation that would prevent nuclear cooperation between the United States and any country that provides nuclear assistance to Iran as well as support diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem. It would also expand bilateral sanctions against Iran by severely limiting the export of U.S. items to Iran and by prohibiting all imports. Additionally, H.R. 1400 calls for enhanced UN Security Council efforts in response to Iran's continued defiance of the international community. Finally, it is important to note that the bill specifically states that the administration cannot interpret anything in the legislation as a congressional authorization of a military strike on Iran. Earlier this year, the House passed the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, H.R. 2347. This legislation which I also supported would authorize State and local governments to divest from, and prevent investment in, companies with financial ties to Iran's energy sector, or that sell arms to the Government of Iran, and financial institutions that extend credit to the Government of Iran. H.R. 1400 is logical next step to ensure that the United States does everything in our power to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state and further destabilizing the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 95 into the Record.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express support for the goals and ideals of Campus Fire Safety Month, introduced by the representative from Ohio, Mrs. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Campus fire safety is an important issue for students all over the country. Since January of 2000, at least 113 young people have died in student housing fires. These unfortunate deaths may have been prevented by better education of fire safety measures and implementation of effective prevention systems. In my own State of New Jersey, early on January 19, 2000, a fire killed three students and injured 58 others at Seton Hall University. Over 75 percent of these fatalities around the country have occurred in off-campus housing. It should be a priority to make sure that all students are aware of fire safety information, especially those students who do not live in on-campus housing. Fire safety training should be a continuing process so that our Nation's young people practice fire safety throughout their lives. As we send our Nation's students off to campuses this month to further their education, it is essential that they are in safe environments. Simple steps such as testing smoke detectors and having a working and accessible fire extinguisher can help keep our students safe. By recognizing September as Campus Fire Safety Month, this resolution will help bring awareness to such simple and critical measures to protect students from fire hazards. Mr. Speaker, the knowledge and skills learned through fire safety training are invaluable for everyone. I would like to encourage administrators and municipalities across the country to provide educational programs to all students during September and throughout the school year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota. May I ask if he has any further speakers?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Minnesota has said, we are safer, students in dormitories and off-campus housing are safer than they were 6, 8 years ago. We have learned things to do. In this case, we know what to do. The education should be carried forward. Designation of this awareness month will help in that educational effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support enthusiastically this measure.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill of 2007, H.R. 2881. This summer's record delays at many of our Nation's airports have made it evident that our air traffic control system is in desperate need of reform. According to the FAA, 25 percent of flights arrived late, nearly 3 percent of flights were cancelled and customer complaints doubled since last year. My central New Jersey constituents who use Newark Liberty International Airport suffer from the worst delays in the country with only 55 percent of flights arriving on time. The legislation before us today will give the FAA the tools it needs in order to reduce these delays and help increase flight safety. It will provide the much needed funding to modernize our aging air traffic control system and to strengthen and rebuild airport infrastructure. It will require the FAA to meet with airport officials and airlines to ensure flight reductions in areas where over-scheduling is causing chronic delays. This bill will make sure that there are the adequate consumer protections in place to protect our Nation's airline passengers. Few of us have forgotten the February 14, 2007 and December 29, 2006 incidents where hundreds of airline passengers were held on tarmacs for up to 10 hours in appalling conditions. These passengers were held in planes with foul air, backed up toilets, little food and water, and no information. The legislation before us today will ensure that these situations will be avoided in the future. H.R. 2881 requires airlines and airports to have emergency contingency plans to take care of passengers that are involved in long tarmac delays. Through these plans it will mandate that these passengers have access to food, water, clean restrooms, medical care and requires that passengers are allowed to deplane. It also requires the Department of Transportation to enact regulations that will require airlines to fairly compensate passengers whose flights are cancelled. These commonsense protections will make sure that the airlines respect the basic needs and rights of passengers. The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill of 2007 contains a number of other provisions which will improve the way that our aviation industry operates. It will help protect our environment through requiring the development of more efficient engines that release less greenhouse gases into the air as well as directs the FAA to develop more energy efficient routes. Our Nation's air traffic controllers work long and stress-filled hours to ensure that we have the safest air travel in the world. This bill ensures that the FAA will be forced to come back to the contract negotiating table. It will also increase the number of aviation safety inspectors by one third, require the FAA to be more accountable, and improve the security of aircraft repair stations. I urge my colleagues to support the FAA Reauthorization bill of 2007.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, it is fitting that we are pausing to honor the memory of those who died on that terrible day and to reaffirm our commitment to bring to justice those who perpetrated these heinous acts. Today is also a time for us to remember that we can best honor those who perished by learning the right lessons from 9/11, including the heroes of United Flight 93 like Todd Beamer, whose actions that day prevented further loss of life in Washington, DC. Over the last 6 years, we have made it harder for the reconstituted al Qaeda to mount a similar operation against the United States. And last month, the Congress passed and the President signed into law a bill (H.R. 1) that will implement the balance of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. These are tangible achievements, but we must guard against the kind of complacency and false sense of security that prevailed before the attacks on our Nation. Because al Qaeda's leadership--Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri--remains at large, America is still vulnerable to future al Qaeda attacks. Moreover, our involvement in Iraq has caused us to waste lives, resources, and time that should have been spent in finding and neutralizing bin Laden and Zawahiri, and dismantling the rest of their network. We know that our involvement in Iraq has made it harder for us to rally the world in the common struggle against al Qaeda and its murderous ideology. The sooner we disengage militarily from Iraq, the sooner we will be able to refocus ourselves and our allies on the larger and far more important struggle against bin Laden and those like him. We must also do what is necessary to care for the first responders of 9/11--those who have developed debilitating illnesses as a result of their exposure to the multiple toxins unleashed in the aftermath of the attacks. I'm hopeful that a bill to provide for the long-term monitoring of affected first responders (H. Res. 128), offered by my colleague Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, will be brought to the floor of the House for a vote very soon. Finally, we must ensure that America does whatever is necessary to take care of the men and women of our armed forces who are engaged in the hunt for our terrorist enemies. Traumatic brain injury, life- changing physical wounds, and post-traumatic stress disorder are all conditions that are affecting veterans in record numbers. I'm gratified that this Congress has provided major funding increases to deal with the needs of the veterans, but we must do more than provide one-year increases in funding--we need to structurally increase the VA health care budget to cover these injuries and their treatment throughout the expected lifetimes of these veterans. To do less dishonors them and our Nation. Madam Speaker, as we mark this solemn day, let us remember that so long as we remain united as a people, we will weather this struggle successfully--just as we weathered the fights against fascism and communism in the last century.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2669 the College Cost Reduction Act. I would like to thank Chairman Miller and his staff for this bill that will provide New Jersey residents an additional $262 Million in loan and Pell grant aid. Once signed into law, this legislation will ensure that more Federal student aid money gets to the students who need it, and in New Jersey, the need is great. Over 61,000 students in New Jersey take out need- based loans for 4-year schools each year and incur an average of over $14,000 in debt. Under the legislation, the maximum value of the Pell grant scholarship would increase by $1,090 over the next 5 years, reaching $5,400 by 2012. This increase would fully restore the purchasing power of the scholarship, which in recent years had been frozen at $4,050 until Congress boosted its value to $4,310 earlier this year. I am pleased that the committee included several initiatives that I have been working on, including provisions from my bill H.R. 2017, the Part-time Student Assistance Act. We have raised the income protection allowance in the College Cost Reduction Act so that working students can work more without having that count against their student aid. Further, we were able to eliminate the earned income tax credit from calculations so that working families do not have to bear this burden. The bill also provides upfront grant aid for those who are becoming math, science, and foreign language teachers. The bill would create grants providing upfront pre-paid tuition assistance of $4,000 per year with a maximum of $16,000 for elementary or secondary school math and science teachers and critical foreign language teachers. Our classrooms have an increasing shortage of teachers for these vital subjects. This problem is most severe in school districts were students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Without qualified teachers in these areas, we are endangering the competitiveness of our children in the global economy. Students who take out loans or receive Pell grants will now find it easier to finance their education. By investing in foreign language and math and science education, we'll enhance both our economic and national security. Part-time students will have an easier time balancing the need to care for their families and improve their education. This is public policy at its best--it lifts up Americans from all walks of life. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an investment in our future. Without providing access to a college education we will not be able to compete with nations that have already made the investments in providing a quality education for their own children. The United States is a dominant world economy because of our educated workforce. With this bill we will take a larger step toward maintaining this edge and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which will provide our men and women in uniform with the tools to defend America and its people. Overall, this bill provides $459.594 billion for the operations of the Defense Department for fiscal year 2008, which is more than $43 billion above last year's level. This bill keeps faith with our troops and their families in three key areas. First, this bill provides $2.9 billion ($558.4 million above the President's request) for programs including childcare centers, education programs and the family advocacy program which provides support to military families affected by the demands of war and episodes of child or spouse abuse. Second, the bill addresses the health care needs of military families and retirees by providing $22.957 billion ($1.7 billion above 2007 and $416 million above the President's 2008 request) for their care. The bill rejects the President's proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases on our troops, their families, and our military retirees. Finally, the bill provides $2.2 to cover the cost of a 3.5 percent military pay raise, as approved in the House version of the Defense Authorization bill. This bill also prepares our forces to meet future needs. The bill provides $7.548 billion, a 13 percent increase for all home-stationing training, so that our troops are well prepared for any eventual deployment. The bill also supports DoD's plans to increase the size of the Army and Marines by providing $4 billion to cover the equipment costs of adding 7,000 Army troops and $2 billion to cover cost of adding 5,000 Marines. These force structure increases may reduce the number of deployments individual servicemembers may face in the years ahead. The bill also addresses Guard and Reserve equipment shortfalls by providing $925 million ($635 million above 2007 levels) in order to help forces meet the demands of overseas deployments and respond to natural disasters here at home. This amount meets the requirements identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the ``Essential 10 Equipment Requirements for the Global War on Terror.'' To help America maintain its technological edge in the military arena, the bill provides $76.229 billion ($1.112 billion above the President's request and $508 million above 2007 levels) for research, development, testing and evaluation programs, including military medical research. Funding for production of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter was zeroed out because they are not ready to go into production. Research and development will continue. Regarding ballistic missile defense programs, the committee cut some $298 million from the President's $8.498 billion request. I continue to believe that this is the single most wasteful, technologically impractical, and politically shortsighted programs in the entire Pentagon budget, and I hope that further cuts to this program will be forthcoming when the House and Senate conferees meet later this year. The bill also cuts $406 million from the President's $3.157 billion request for the Future Combat System, the Army's projected next generation of armor, artillery, and related vehicle programs. This is another example of a Cold War legacy program that continues to receive massive funding despite its complete irrelevance to the wars we've been waging since 9/11. If we've learned anything from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not that our soldiers' greatest need has been additional firepower from new tanks and artillery pieces--it's been their need for translators and cultural specialist who could help them bridge the language and culture gap with the Iraqis and Afghans who want to help us find the insurgents and terrorists who are destroying their societies. I'm glad the committee has taken this initial step in reducing expenditures on this Cold War legacy program, but I hope that it represents only the beginning of a fundamental reevaluation of this program and the eventual reprogramming of its funds towards more productive ends. Finally, I wanted to take a moment to address a structural change that was made to the committee at the beginning of this Congress, one that has significantly enhanced this body's oversight of intelligence programs. Earlier this year and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, which I have the honor of chairing. This step was in direct response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation that Congress take steps to reform how it conducts oversight of the intelligence community. Our panel contains a mix of members from both the Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our charter is to review the operations of the intelligence community and to recommend policies and funding levels where necessary. The bill before you incorporates our recommendations. The majority of these recommendations are detailed in the classified annex to this bill and cannot be discussed in open session. However, one specific recommendation can be outlined for this body and the public, and it involves those critical foreign language programs of which I spoke earlier. Our panel recommended a more than $10 million increase in funding for the National Security Education Program, or NSEP for short. NSEP was established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act (NSEA), as amended, P.L. 102-183, codified at 50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. It was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on December 4, 1991. The NSEA mandated the Secretary of Defense to create the National Security Education Program (NSEP) to award: (1) scholarships to U.S. undergraduate students to study abroad in areas critical to U.S. national security; (2) fellowships to U.S. graduate students to study languages and world regions critical to U.S. national security; and (3) grants to U.S. institutions of higher education to develop programs of study in and about countries, languages and international fields critical to national security and under-represented in U.S. study. Also mandated in the NSEA was the creation of the National Security Education Board (NSEB) to provide overall guidance for NSEP. NSEP's mission is to build a broader and more qualified pool of U.S. citizens with foreign language and international skills. It consists of five initiatives that represent broad strategic partnerships with the U.S. education community designed to serve the needs of U.S. national security and national competitiveness. NSEP focuses on the critical languages and cultures of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America, and is unique in the commitment of its award recipients to proceed into public service upon completion of their academic studies. Each NSEP award recipient must demonstrate a commitment to bring his or her extraordinary skills to the Federal Government through employment within one of its many agencies and departments. I'm pleased that our panel has placed such bipartisan emphasis on closing the foreign language and cultural literacy gaps that still exist within our national intelligence and defense agencies. However, it is clear that our deployed forces still do not have anything approaching the number of qualified linguists and cultural experts to help them effectively interact with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and most of the other countries of the Arab and Islamic world that are the critical battlegrounds in the war of ideas, hearts, and minds against al Qaeda. I will work with Chairman Murtha in the coming year to address this issue. Mr. Chairman, on balance, this is a good bill that provides our armed forces what they need to protect our citizens, our allies, and our vital interests, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I commend the subcommittee for bringing this bill to the floor. Let me also take a moment to commend the outstanding staff of both the Defense subcommittee and the staff of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel for their hard work and expert contributions to our final product. I also want to thank the Panel's ranking member, Mr. LaHood, for his many thoughtful contributions to our work this year. Speaker Pelosi is a leader of vision and boldness. Under her leadership, the House passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, which I have the honor to chair. This step was in direct response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that Congress reform how it conducts oversight of the intelligence community. Specifically, the Commission said ``Congress should create a joint committee for intelligence, in with combined authorizing and appropriations powers.'' The Speaker created a panel consisting of appropriators and authorizers . Our panel contains a mix of members from both the Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our charter is to review all aspects of the intelligence community and report to the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense. The bill before you contains our first such set of recommendations, which have put everyone on notice that real Congressional oversight of intelligence activities has resumed after a long and dangerous lapse. This panel--unprecedented in Congressional history I believe--appears to be making a difference. Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha have taken the Speaker's proposal and made it succeed. Working in a bipartisan manner, the panel has made numerous recommendations ranging from increased funding for foreign language programs to restructuring of major intelligence programs. Those recommendations are incorporated into this bill. I think almost all Americans now know that our national intelligence agencies activities around the globe affect their safety and prosperity at home. What I hope they will now also know is that we in the House have made the oversight changes necessary to help keep them safe and their liberties secure. Let me close by saying that our Panel's work is just beginning, and that I look forward to reporting to the House occasionally on our activities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I shall be brief. Suppose you are driving to work. Now, today you can listen to the radio and avoid some delays. But what if you had real-time information in your car that would instruct you to turn now and save 10 minutes on your commute? What if you could use that technology every day? What if millions of Americans used that technology every day? You would save time, fuel and money. Mr. Chairman, this is not far-fetched. The technology exists today, but it is not widely implemented, although it could be. Information technology is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Electronic systems are now relatively inexpensive and easy to install, but we've really not looked at using them systematically. My amendment would mandate a study of this new technology, such as web-based real-time information systems, freight route management, congestion information systems, car pool information systems, parking information and so forth and would examine the fuel savings. This amendment, which is supported by the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, simply calls for a study of the energy savings from intelligent transportation systems. It, indeed, I would argue, is an intelligent amendment, and I believe Mr. Oberstar from Minnesota would agree.

Mr. HOLT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. Again, this is very much in line with what the gentleman and his committee have authorized. The amendment just goes a step farther to require a study of the energy savings. I expect we will find that they are great, but let's do the study. I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this tonight is about how our government treats its people. One of the characteristics of oppressive governments that we detest throughout history is that they spy on their own people. The chilling intrusion into people's lives, effects, and relationships must be controlled even if the government officers think that the intrusion is necessary to preserve safety, security and order. Indeed, civil protections are necessary, especially if the government says they are trying to protect safety, security and order. Courts must establish that there is a probable cause to believe an American is a threat to society, and it must be the courts, not the Attorney General, not the Director of National Intelligence, who determine that the standard is being met. Let me correct some points. There is not a huge gap. FISA is not broken. Do not believe these scare tactics. Legislation should not be passed to respond to fear-mongering. Of course, we need good intelligence to protect Americans, but we are being asked to enter a ``just trust us'' form of legislation. Just trust an Attorney General who has provided demonstrably false or misleading testimony before Congress on this very issue. We are being asked to just trust this Attorney General with unlimited authority to authorize spying on Americans through this legislation without oversight of the courts, even after his own Inspector General has revealed massive abuses of civil liberties through his department's unchecked use of national security letters. I urge my colleagues to recognize this for the historic importance it has and vote down this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding. One of the characteristics of oppressive governments that we detest is that they spy on their own people. The chilling intrusion into people's lives, effects, and relationships must be controlled even if the government's officers think the intrusion is necessary to preserve safety, security, and order. Indeed, civil protections are necessary, especially if the government officers say they are trying to protect safety, security, and order. Courts must establish that there is a probable cause to believe an American is a threat to society, and it must be the courts, not the Attorney General, not the Director of National Intelligence, who determine that the standard is met. The issue here is not about foreign-to-foreign intercepts. It is about how our government treats its citizens.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's children, a strong and secure Medicare program, and for passage of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, CHAMP Act, H.R. 3162. More than 6.6 million children today have health insurance because of the creation a decade ago of the State Children's Health Insurance Program SCHIP. However, these children will lose their access to good, affordable health insurance if the Congress does not act to reauthorize the SCHIP program by September 30, 2007. Today, the House will vote on the CHAMP Act, H.R. 3162, which will reauthorize and expand the SCHIP program to ensure even more children have access to the health care their parents cannot afford or who work in jobs that do not provide health care benefits. The CHAMP Act will provide 11 million children with health care, by expanding SCHIP to include an additional 5 million children who currently have no health insurance. The CHAMP Act also provides the tools needed and creates incentives for States to reach the millions of children who are eligible but not currently enrolled in the SCHIP program. The bill ensures that children have 12 months of continuous eligibility, so their parents do not frequently have to complete a complex renewal process. Additionally, dental coverage and parity for mental health will also be provided to children under the CHAMP Act. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 44 million Americans lack health care coverage, including more than 14 percent of New Jersey's residents. Many of these Americans are children. It is simply unconscionable that in our country millions of children are uninsured. The SCHIP program is strongly supported by our Nation's governors who have managed the State-run programs over the past decade and understand that SCHIP allows States to cover low-income children who lack health insurance in families of the working poor. New Jersey uses its SCHIP funds to run a program called FamilyCare. Our State is a leader in extending FamilyCare eligibility and currently 125,000 children as well as 85,000 low income-parents are enrolled in New Jersey's program. Without SCHIP all of these residents of New Jersey would again be uninsured. The CHAMP Act will allow States, like New Jersey, to continue set income eligibility for the SCHIP program. Because the cost of living is so high in New Jersey, it is important that our State has the flexibility needed to establish realistic eligibility guidelines. Additionally, the CHAMP Act will allow New Jersey to continue to enroll parents along with their children. According to research by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, one highly effective way of boosting coverage among low-income children is to broaden health insurance to their parents. Currently, New Jersey is one of nine States that covers low-income parents. Because the new Democratic majority is committed to balanced budgets and opposed to deficit spending, this bill pays for this historic commitment to our Nation's children with an appropriate increase in the Federal tobacco tax and reductions to the overpayments that have been paid to the privately run Medicare Advantage plans. Contrary to their euphemistic name, these plans have not been so advantageous for our Nation's seniors. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, the 45 cent-per-pack increase in the tobacco tax that is included in the CHAMP Act will result in 1,381,000 less children who will become smokers. This will improve their health and result in long-term healthcare savings of $32.4 billion, 669,000 fewer smoking related deaths and 171,800 fewer newborn children harmed by smoking over the next 5 years. Further, by reducing overpayments to the privately run Medicare Advantage plans, the CHAMP Act increases Medicare's solvency, and helps protect Medicare beneficiaries from higher premiums. For our Nation's seniors the CHAMP Act makes much needed improvements to Medicare. I am pleased the CHAMP Act contains a provision I wrote when I introduced the Helping Fill the Medicare Rx Gap Act, H.R. 2058, to include costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, ADAPs, in calculating a Medicare Part D beneficiary's true out-of-pocket, Troop, costs. Medicare Part D pays 75 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs until their expenses reach $2,400. Part D then stops paying and individual beneficiaries must pay for all of their drugs until total expenses reach $5,451. This leaves a coverage gap of $3,051--the ``donut hole.'' ``True out-of-pocket'' costs, Troop in the donut hole determine when a beneficiary becomes eligible for catastrophic coverage. Individuals suffering from HIV and AIDS need help. By including ADAP costs in calculating out-of-pocket expenses, we make them eligible sooner for help with their prescription drugs and we fix a loophole in Medicare Part D that discriminates against HIV and AIDS victims. Additionally, under this bill the Medicare Part D late enrollment penalty for beneficiaries eligible for the Low-Income Subsidy program is eliminated and our Nation's seniors will be allowed to change their Part D plan during the year to meet their prescription needs. It also reduces the discriminatory copayments that Medicare charged for mental health services to the standard 20 percent copayment and adds additional mental health providers to Medicare so services are more easily available. Under this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries will have increased access to preventative services. The CHAMP Act also ensures that seniors have access to world class doctors by blocking a devastating cut in Medicare physician payments over the next 2 years. The CHAMP Act is supported by the AARP, the American Medical Association, the Catholic Health Association, the National Rural Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, Families USA, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. All of these organizations understand that the CHAMP Act will ensure more American children have health insurance and that Medicare remains strong for decades to come. There are 11 million reasons to vote for this bill, each one a child who will move out of the ranks of the uninsured with the health care provided in the CHAMP Act. Medicare beneficiaries will also see important improvements to their benefits. A measure of a Nation's greatness is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. By making health insurance available for 11 million children, we live up to our moral obligation to keep children healthy and we make our society stronger. The CHAMP Act is historic legislation and I implore the President to drop his objections to this bill and join us in ensuring more Americans are healthy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the subcommittee and its chair for a good bill, and I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Connecticut regarding funding for Community Food Projects and organic transitions research. The 2007 farm bill that passed this House on Friday substantially increased the authorized funding for Community Food Projects, but it changed it from mandatory to discretionary. The CFP supports hundreds of innovative projects selected competitively, such as community kitchens, farmers markets, farm-to-school programs, in Connecticut among other States. I'm hoping that we can work toward finding discretionary funds for CFP. Similarly, while the 2007 farm bill authorized a substantial increase in funding for various organic programs, funding for the organic transitions research program remained flat for the fiscal year. The market for organic food has reached $15 billion and is growing. Yet farmers need help making the transition from traditional to organic methods of farming, and without that help we will increasingly be dependent on overseas sources for organic products. I ask the Chair to consider an increased level of funding for these programs. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008, and to commend the Committee and Subcommittee leadership for their efforts on the bill, but also to express my concern about the lack of funding for community food projects and the lack of an increase in funding for the organic transitions research program for Fiscal Year 2008. The 2007 Farm Bill that passed the House on Friday substantially increased the authorization for Community Food Projects (CFP) funding, from $5 million to $30 million annually. However, it also changed the funding from mandatory to discretionary, and funding for CFP was not included in the FY 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill that is before us today. Hundreds of civic groups and associations throughout the country, as well as low-income consumers and farmers who produce for local and regional markets, benefit from this program. The program facilitates and builds the capacity of non-profit, community-based organizations so they can establish projects that meet the food needs of low-income populations; identify and address weakness in urban food systems, such as insufficient retail food stores in densely populations neighborhoods and poor access to healthy and fresh foods for schools; and promote comprehensive responses to food, farm, and nutrition issues by combining the resources of multiple sectors of the food system. From its inception in 1996 through 2007, CFP received mandatory funding under the Food Stamp Program and it has funded more than 240 innovative projects such as certified community kitchens, community supported agricultural operations, farmer's markets, agri-business incubators, farm-to-school programs and other projects. I regret that the 2007 Farm Bill made CFP funding discretionary, if it remains so in the enacted bill, I hope that the Senate and House conferees will work to ensure that the prevailing level of funding for CFP will be provided in the enacted Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill. In addition, I wish to stress the urgency of increasing funding for organic transitions research in Fiscal Year 2008. While the 2007 Farm bill will substantially increase funding for various organic programs, funding for the organic transitions research program has again remained flat for Fiscal Year 2008. The market for organic food has reached $15 billion and, according to the Organic Trade Association, growth in sales of organic food has been 15 percent to 21 percent each year since 1998, compared with 2 percent to 4 percent for total food sales. Although there are now 10,000 organic farms in the United States, that is not enough to keep pace with demand. As a result, organic food suppliers must increasingly look for organic produce and other agricultural products from overseas locations. The Organic Transitions Program is a highly competitive grants program established as part of the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. This national program has been extremely important to the organic farming community in funding research to assist farmers in overcoming the barriers to transitioning their farm operations into organic production. Through grants awarded under the program, for example, a university in the West has been funded to research ecological soil community management for enhanced nutrient cycling; a Northeastern university has been funded to research reducing off-farm grain inputs on northeast organic dairy farms; and another--a university in a Great Plains state--to fund research into the transition to sustainability. The demand for research on a wide variety of topics related to organic agriculture has been increasing in proportion to the surging growth in the demand for organic agricultural products, and the benefits of this research accrue not simply to organic and other farmers, but to the entire health-conscious population. Notwithstanding this surge in demand, funding for organic research to facilitate the transition into organic farming methods has been holding steady at just under $2 million for the last few fiscal years, which represents only one-hundredth of one percent of the size of the industry the research is intended to support. The organic transitions program has been extremely important to the organic farming community in funding research to assist farmers in overcoming the barriers to transitioning their farm operations into organic production. My amendment to increase funding for this program to $5 million passed in the House last year, and I hope to see this level of funding included in the enacted Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the House is taking action today to bring some sanity back to our military deployment and rotation policies. I intend to vote for this bill. We all know that because of these repeated deployments, the divorce rates of military families are up, and the financial burdens faced by our Guard and Reserve families have been enormous. While this bill cannot address all of the deployment-related problems confronting our military families, it would address one of the most glaring: insufficient down time and retraining between deployments. If this bill becomes law, it would mandate dedicated periods of time between deployments for all servicemembers. For active duty personnel, the intervals between deployments would have to be at least as long as the last deployment itself. For our Guard and Reserve forces, the interval between deployments would have to be at least three times the length of a servicemember's last tour. Every Member of this House can tell multiple stories they've heard from servicemembers or their family members about the toll that these multiple, sometimes back-to-back deployments take on our military families. Let me quickly relate one story I've heard, one of many reasons I'm voting for this bill today. Bill Potter is an attorney and lecturer in politics at both Princeton University and Rutgers University. Just over a year ago, he wrote an op-ed in the Trenton Times regarding the situation of his nephew, a Marine Corps captain, who had been blinded in his right eye after being fired on by an Iraqi policeman-turned-insurgent--one of many Iraqi policemen-turned-insurgents that we have trained and armed with an inadequate counterintelligence effort by the Iraqi government to weed out such bad actors. Bill's nephew is a remarkable young man. Wounded twice in Iraq on his first tour in 2005, recovered sufficiently to go on a deployment to the Pacific in 2006 and is now facing the prospect of a second tour in Iraq beginning in January 2008--and of leaving his now nine year-old son behind for a third time in as many years. This young Marine--like so many others--has already paid too high a price for this President's misguided war in Iraq. This bill, if enacted, would at least give our servicemembers and their families some real down time between deployments--time to reconnect with each other, and time for these gallant Americans to get the rest and refresher training that they will need to face the future. It's for all of those reasons that I'm voting for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007. Taking most of its content from the National Academies Report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' H.R. 2272 is the compilation of an ambitious legislative portfolio that will fulfill the Innovation Agenda. I was proud to help craft the Innovation Agenda, on which our nation is dependent for its future prosperity, and to serve on the conference committee of H.R. 2272. As a scientist and educator, I have had the opportunity to work at several stages of our nation's science research pipeline. This bill contains sound strategies for addressing our lagging competitiveness at every stage of this pipeline, from K-12 education to research and development. Such a comprehensive approach is badly needed. H.R. 2272 creates programs for training teachers and for encouraging students to enter into fields where there is national need. It sets us on a necessary path to doubling our investment in the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. To ensure we are harnessing all available talent, this bill encourages underrepresented students to enter science and technology. It ensures that we do not lose talent at the early career bottleneck that follows completion of a terminal research-based degree. I am also pleased that the two initiatives that I have championed in the House of Representatives have made it into the conference report. The first is the Foreign Language Partnership, which is a competitive grant program to enable institutions of higher education and local educational agencies working in partnership to establish articulated programs of study in critical foreign languages so that students from the elementary through postsecondary level can advance their knowledge successfully and achieve higher levels of proficiency in a critical foreign language. The second is State P-16 Councils--that is, primary school through college. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to states to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in academic credit-bearing coursework in institutions of higher education, in the 21st century workforce. This bill will make us not only successful, but also a nation more worthy of success. It gives students with financial need better access to science and technology careers, empowering them to improve their lives and contribute to society. It makes necessary investments in energy research that will give our children a world we are proud for them to inherit. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. Without its reforms, we will continue to lose our global lead in science, technology, and quality of life.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the principle of equal pay for equal work and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, H.R. 2831. On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court issued a disturbing and retrobressive ruling. In a 5-4 ruling the Court issued its decision in a sex discrimination case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, that fundamentally changed protections that American workers have enjoyed for more than 40 years when they were codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, I participated in a hearing on the flawed ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. During that hearing the Committee heard testimony from Lilly Ledbetter describing the pay discrimination that resulted in her earning twenty percent less than the lowest paid man in the same position at Goodyear. Applying the law as it was written and intended, the trial court awarded Lilly Ledbetter backpay and compensatory damages because of Goodyear's illegal sex discrimination. On appeal it went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito led the 5-4 majority in dismissing the case. According to Justice Alito, when Lilly Ledbetter failed to file a discrimination case within the statutorily provided 180 days from the initial decision to pay her less than her male colleague, she was barred from filing a complaint and no relief was available. Despite documenting the sex based evaluation system Goodyear managers used, Lilly Ledbetter was denied justice and the rights afforded to her under the Civil Rights Act. In a strongly worded dissent Judge Ginsburg noted the fallacy of the Majority's argument regarding the timeliness of Lilly Ledbetter's filing. She reminded the Court that a previous ruling that held each ``paycheck perpetuating a past discrimination . . . are actionable not simply because they are `related' to a decision made outside the charge-filing period . . . but because they discriminate anew each time they are issued.'' Judge Ginsburg explicitly called on Congress to intervene and uphold the protections provided by the letter and the spirit of the law, saying ``the ball is in Congress' court.'' Today, we answer Judge Ginsburg's call and reverse this disturbing Supreme Court decision. Today, we make clear that Congress is committed to protecting the rights of American workers and to ensuring that they have adequate remedies if they are discriminated against in the workplace. The passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 clarifies that when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act extend not only to these discriminatory pay decisions and practices but to every paycheck that results from those pay decisions and practices. Any reasonable citizen who believes that we need protect the rights of workers for fair treatment at the workplace and fair pay would surely find the Supreme Court decision unreasonable. We must act once to reestablish fairness. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, which seeks to ensure that our government fully implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. While the Congress has previously enacted the majority of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, several were not addressed during the last Congress. Moreover, in the years since the Department of Homeland Security was created and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 became law, we've learned a number of lessons about how well--or poorly--these reforms have worked. The bill before us is a partial response to those lessons learned. This bill authorizes robust funding for a variety of homeland security grant programs, including emergency management performance grants, interoperable emergency communications grants, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program. The bill also mandates more emphasis on a risk-based approach to the awarding of UASI grants, something that I and others in the New Jersey delegation have long advocated. Improving the department's ability to spot threats and foil attacks before they happen remains a primary concern of all of us in Congress. Those of us who serve on committees that deal with intelligence issues know that the department's intelligence operation suffers from a lack of clout within both the department and the intelligence community as a whole. The bill offers a partial remedy for this problem by reorganizing the department's intelligence operations and elevating the Chief Intelligence Officer from an Assistant Secretary to an Undersecretary--putting that officer on par with his counterpart at the Pentagon. I agree with the thrust of this reorganization. However, we shouldn't deceive ourselves: rearranging the department's organization chart is no substitute for the President putting forward highly qualified nominees for this and the many other positions at DHS that remain vacant to this day. While I believe this proposed reorganization will help to rationalize and streamline DHS's intelligence management structure, the President must take action to appoint intelligence leaders who are aggressive and focused--and then hold them accountable for their performance or lack thereof. Another 9/11 Commission recommendation relating to our intelligence operations concerned declassifying how much we spend per year on intelligence activities. Those who oppose declassifying the overall budget figure claim it would undermine our security. Declassifying the overall budget figure would simply tell the American taxpayer how much of their money is going towards intelligence programs and activities, something they most certainly deserve to know. Declassifying the overall budget figure would in no way compromise intelligence sources or methods. That is why I was disappointed that the conferees elected to include language that allows the President to postpone or even waive the disclosure of the overall intelligence community budget figure by certifying to Congress that such disclosure would damage national security. This was a needless concession to the President and I will seek to have this provision reexamined next year. Regarding measures Congress can take to improve its oversight of the intelligence community, I was pleased to see that the report indicates that the Senate is considering following the House's lead in this area. Earlier this year and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, which I have the honor of chairing. Our panel contains a mix of members from both the Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our charter is to continuously review the operations of the intelligence community and to recommend changes in policies and funding levels where necessary. We just completed our first such review, and the vast majority of our recommendations were approved by the full Appropriations Committee just this week. If the Senate is looking for a model for how to better coordinate its intelligence oversight work, I would highly recommend that they look at the model we're now using here in the House. I was also very disappointed to see that the conferees dropped language relating to workers' rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining with the department. Most other Federal workers already have this right, and our failure to ensure our airport screeners are allowed to organize and negotiate for better salaries and benefits is wrong and should be revisited next year. On a brighter note, the bill significantly enhances the power and status of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), whose creation was another key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Currently, the PCLOB is under the direct control of the Executive Office of the President. It has lacked significant funding, something I tried to remedy in the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence Authorization bill by offering an amendment to the bill that would have authorized an annual funding stream of $3 million. Unfortunately, the Republican majority blocked that amendment from coming to the House floor for a vote. This bill solves that problem by authorizing a steady increase in the Board's budget, from $5 million for fiscal year 2008 up to $10 million through fiscal year 2011, and such funds as are necessary from 2012 and beyond. Another drawback to the current Board is its lack of independence has clearly undermined its ability to act as a true civil liberties watchdog. The bill before us would remove the Board from the EOP and make it an independent agency within the executive branch, and require that all Board members--not just the chairman--be subject to Senate confirmation. The bill also gives the Board real subpoena power, a critical tool for ensuring compliance with the Board's requests for information and testimony from executive branch officials. Overall, this is a good bill whose enactment would enhance our Nation's security, and it is for that reason that I will vote for it and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I acknowledge and do not disparage the work of the committee. Let us consider, though, how much better we can do-- for consumers, for the Northeast, for New Jersey, for specialty crop growers, for small farmers, for nutrition programs, for our common environment. By shifting from obsolete programs the Kind amendment provides an additional $1.2 billion above the committee bill for fruit and vegetable growers--tripling the Farmer Market Promotion Program, making $500 million mandatory for Specialty Crop Research, making $150 million mandatory for Community Food Projects, and providing hundreds of millions of dollars for community supported agriculture, and the School Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. I want to emphasize that the Kind amendment would provide $3 billion more than the committee bill to conservation programs. Support for the Kind amendment is broad and diverse including environmental and conservation groups, nutrition groups and groups that serve low-income Americans, specialty crop and organic farmers, and taxpayer groups. This is a sensible amendment. Indeed, the proposal by Mr. Kind, the gentleman from Wisconsin, is a remarkable, admirable legislative reform. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, our Nation's food inspection system is a critical safeguard in guaranteeing the health and welfare of all Americans. However, the federal protections that have existed for over 40 years are now threatened by a provision in the Farm bill that would allow meat and poultry inspected by state inspectors to be sold across state lines. The Nation's food inspection system has served our Nation well by providing clear guidelines and a network of dedicated professional Federal inspectors. Its roots go back to the early 1900s, where a Federal inspection system became one of the landmark legislative accomplishments of President Theodore Roosevelt. While occasional problems have developed, on the whole, our national meat and poultry inspection system has been an unqualified success, with minimal incidents of food borne illnesses due to poor practices, handling or hygiene. So why would we change a system that is so successful? It is my understanding that this change is being proposed to encourage the growth of small meat processing facilities as well as create new markets for state-inspected meat. While more competition and building new markets are laudable goals, they need not come at the expense of food safety or result in the dismantlement of the federal inspection system. No one has made a compelling case that the federal inspection system has truly hindered competition or market development. Thousands of small plants do well under the current inspection regIme. However, in making this change, we are opening the door to problems that could multiply the exposure of consumers to food borne illnesses and food poisoning. The record of plants subject to state inspection is troubling. The USDA IG has repeatedly found that state inspection regimes often do not meet basic requirements for sanitation or cleanliness. Despite this, language was added to the Farm bill to roll back these protections. A letter to Congress from a coalition of groups promoting food safety pointed out that the provision would: Eliminate the 40 year old protection in the federal meat and poultry inspection acts that prohibit shipping state inspected meat across state lines. Make 80% of all federally inspected plants eligible to leave federal inspection in favor of state programs which supporters of the bill insist are more understanding of company problems. Not allow states to impose additional or higher food safety standards. Ignore the inability of states to implement recalls of adulterated meat and poultry that have crossed state lines. The potential for the spread of food-borne illnesses across the country will only increase if we are to allow this provision to remain in the legislation. I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that this troubling provision be dropped when the conference to the Farm bill is convened. Americans deserve the piece of mind that comes with the knowledge that the next meal they consume will not make them sick nor cause them harm.