Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jon Butler, a constituent from Pennington, and recognize his great achievements. Mr. Butler has recently received the 2006 Hershey's STRIVE award, National Administrator of the Year from the National Council of Youth Sports. Mr. Butler has been chosen for this award because he has been a guiding force in his community. He has worked closely with Pop Warner Little Scholars, the largest youth football, cheerleading, and dance program in the United States. Mr. Butler has worked to facilitate children's participation in group sports and activities. These activities engage children in a safe environment and help to teach essential skills and knowledge. Jon now has begun educating Capitol Hill about the value of Pop Warner Little Scholars. Mr. Butler sets high standards for children and always encourages them to perform at their highest level. Mr. Butler has developed a Coaches Education Training Program to educate adults on the basic fundamentals of youth sports, including sportsmanship, coaching techniques, and respect for youth. STRIVE, which stands for Sports Teach Respect, Initiative, Values, and Excellence, honors adult leaders who have a passion for helping children, and I am proud to recognize Mr. Jon Butler for receiving this award.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the decisive actions taken this week by the U.S. Congress to address the ongoing genocide and worsening humanitarian crisis in Darfur. I am pleased that the House of Representatives has again passed H.R. 3127, The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. The House originally considered this bill on April 5, 2006, but it took the Senate more than five months to pass it, finally doing so on September 21st. This important bill would block the assets and deny visas and entry to any individual (or family member) responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Sudan. H.R. 3127 authorizes support for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. It prohibits U.S. assistance to a country in violation of U.N. Security Council embargo on military assistance to Sudan. It also urges a Security Council resolution supporting expanding the African Union peacekeeping mission. I look forward to the President signing this important measure into law. The House has also considered and agreed to H. Res. 723 and H. Res. 992, both of which I am proud to cosponsor. These resolutions call on President Bush to take decisive action to respond to the ongoing crisis in the Sudan. In June, I joined with many of my colleagues to call on President Bush to appoint a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan. Appointing a Special Envoy would demonstrate to the international community that the United States remains engaged and committed at the highest level to bring peace to Darfur. In his address to the United Nations last week, President Bush announced his appointment of former United States Agency for International Development Administrator Andrew Natsios as Special Envoy. I welcome and applaud this move and remain hopeful that this high-level official will be able to bring the resources and focus of the U.S. Government to bear on this crisis. As I have said before, for too long the world community turned its back to the ongoing genocide in the Sudan. But the actions of students, religious leaders, and concerned citizens in the United States and around the globe raised awareness about the horrors occurring in Darfur. I want to thank all who shared with me their concern about Darfur in town hall meetings, letters, phone calls, and e-mails over the last three years. Today, the Congress is answering their calls for action. Passing these bills is an important step to ending the genocide and beginning to hold those who are guilty accountable--but it cannot be our only step. Our commitment to end this conflict and to the people of the region must not begin and end today. We must remain focused and dedicated to ending the genocide and healing the wounds of a prolonged civil war. Justice must be served on those who perpetrated these heinous immoral crimes and we must help rebuild and restore the lives of the people who, through the grace of God, survive this hellish civil war. After the systematic genocide of the Holocaust, we said never again. After the horrors of Rwanda and the Kosovo we committed ourselves to preventing genocide before it surfaced elsewhere. Sadly, we are to adding Darfur to this list. It is long past time for the United Nations to become involved in Sudan. The U.N. needs to deploy a robust and sizable international mission to end the genocide and then work to bring peace to the Sudan. President Bush was right last week to suggest that it may be time to override the objections of the Sudanese government in order to send international peacekeepers into Darfur. After his speech to the U.N., Bush said, ``[T]here's genocide taking place in Sudan. . . . Now is the time for the U.N. to act.'' I call on the President to continue to push for action on this issue with world leaders, internationalize the response, and advocate in the United Nations to end the genocide in Darfur. I pray that the suffering will soon end, and that we will not soon forget our brothers and sisters in Africa.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so-called ``Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006,'' H.R. 2679. This bill would send a chilling message to those who seek to uphold the Constitution and protect the religious liberty granted by the Constitution. Further, by denying aggrieved parties the existing remedies, this bill would embolden those who try to impose their religious beliefs on others to take additional risk and further violate the Constitution. H.R. 2679 seeks to amend, for the first time, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which is our Nation's oldest civil rights law. This bill would fundamentally alter the way individuals seek redress from violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Worse, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. What we are discussing goes to the very heart of one of the essential principles enshrined the Constitution and documents of the founding of America principles: the separation between church and state. Two of our Founding Fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, spent almost 10 years debating this central issue in the Virginia State Legislature. Yet, today, the Republican Majority has allowed it to be debated only for a single hour on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Such an important change to the constitutional rights of Americans should receive thorough review by the House. This legislation would bar parties who successfully assert their constitutional right to bring a case under the Establishment Clause from receiving attorney's fees. Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, successful plaintiffs are awarded attorneys fees if their civil rights have denied by government officials. This remedy was intended to make the government think twice about acting in manner that would infringe upon constitutionally protected rights. However, we are considering legislation that would strip a remedy for plaintiffs who assert that the government infringed upon their religious freedoms. This legislation is opposed by the Interfaith Alliance, American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Council of Jewish Women, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Woman's Law Center, Secular Coalition for America, People for the American Way, Friends Committee on National Legislation and Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects all Americans from government endorsement of, or favoritism toward, specific religion, or any religion. Its protection extends only as far as it can be enforced, however. We limit the ability of citizens, churches, and other organizations to challenge the government at our own peril. The Establishment Clause was written not only to ensure that people could practice religion as they saw fit, but also to prevent government from meddling in organized religion. Those who seek to expand religious expression by allowing the government to participating in it do great harm to the religious and non-religious.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day in support of H. Con. Res. 478, supporting the goals and ideals of the Lights On Afterschool! program. According to the Afterschool Alliance's survey, 14.3 million children are left alone and unsupervised after school. Lights On provides children with a safe place to go after school and promotes healthy opportunities for growth and learning. I believe that after school programs provide vital services to our youth and we must make a commitment to continue to fund these programs. Communities and schools can help by promoting after-school programs that engage teenagers in a thoughtful and safe manner. Encouraging high school students to join after-school clubs, sports teams, and band or chorus also gives teenagers purposeful extra-curricular activities that diminish their chances of causing trouble in their community. Our children deserve the very best chance to succeed in a turbulent global community, a world where economic competitors grow more numerous and powerful everyday. To ensure American leadership in the future, children today must be afforded comprehensive education and enrichment through well-funded schools and after-school activities. There are many after school programs that are benefiting the children of my district. The Trenton After School Program has been serving our community for over 20 years. It not only provides our children with a safe place to go after school, but also provides culturally enriching programs including arts education. Lights On provides children with fun, educational, and entertaining activities when the school day ends. I am proud to rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. The text of the bill that we are considering is quite similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which the House considered in April of last year and I opposed. It is yet again another attempt by Congress to try to interfere in the personal health decisions of young women. The question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any woman can face. Some issues cannot be legislated and I believe that this is one of them. Reproductive health care is a personal matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the government. This bill will force mature young adults who have sought help from individuals other than their parents--including grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings and clergy members--to act alone in a time when loving support is needed. I believe that adolescents should be encouraged to seek their parents' advice and counsel when facing a difficult decision. However, the government cannot mandate healthy family communication where it does not already exist. We need to encourage our youth to seek the counsel of individuals that they do trust and that will advocate for their best interests and not encourage them to go through this difficult process and draining procedure alone. Not only does this bill discourage our youth from seeking adult counsel, this bill will also put the health of young women in jeopardy. A provision of this bill seeks to delay the abortion process by demanding that doctors go through a detailed and complex scheme to notify a parent. Doctors who do not comply and conduct an abortion before this notification will face fines and federal criminal penalties. I would guess that my colleagues on both sides of this issue agree that having an abortion should be the last option for an adolescent. But it is a reality that young women are going to continue to have to make life-altering decisions regarding their bodies regardless of restrictions the federal government places on them. Taking away the support of responsible adults in whom teens trust is not the way to stop abortions. I have consistently opposed legislation of this type because I want to make sure that we protect young women who are facing unintended pregnancies by providing them with assistance from adults they trust. I certainly prefer an open dialogue between parents and teens, so that a hushed, last-minute decision is not necessary. Unfortunately, parental consent is not always a viable option and teens will still make decisions that are difficult for any woman regardless of age. By passing this legislation, we will force trusted adults to turn their backs on their nieces, sisters and granddaughters and we will also be turning our back to the young women of this Nation. Instead of debating a measure that will impose federal punishments on family members and doctors who assist young women who are making difficult choices and considering another measure that attempts to fix a symptom, we should be having a constructive dialogue that gets at the root of this issue. This bill is an injustice to young women across this Nation who need all the support that they can get. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation because it will severely harm young women at one of the most important times in their lives.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Modernization and Reform Act of 2006,'' H.R. 5029. This bill would effectively gut the ability of the ATF to shut down rogue gun dealers who ignore or undermine federal law by selling guns to criminals. It literally protects the worst of the worst. We should be doing more to ensure that our communities are safe, by getting guns out of the hands of criminals. That is why we should make sure federal authorities have all the tools they need to go after criminal gun dealers. Yet, this bill would substantially undermine the ATF's ability to revoke federal firearms licenses and shut down corrupt gun dealers who have repeatedly violated the law. By redefining the burden of proof for violations of existing federal gun laws, this bill would make it essentially impossible to sanction, prosecute, or revoke the federal firearms license of corrupt gun dealers. The vast majority of gun dealers are honest hard-working business owners who play by the rules. Yet, their compliance with federal law is tarnished by the few gun dealers who are more interested in making a profit than following the law or protecting our children. Statistics show that 60 percent of guns used in crimes can be traced back to just 1% of the Nation's 80,000 gun dealers. This means that a tiny percentage of criminal gun dealers are responsible for the bulk of guns used in the crimes that terrorize our communities. Yet, this legislation makes it harder to shut down these criminal outliers. In 2003, the ATF issued only 54 notices of license revocation to shut down rogue gun dealers. That represents .06 percent of all gun dealers. Under the proposed legislation, this small group of dealers would be allowed to stay in business, and pay only a minor fine. This bill would also weaken the recordkeeping requirements that gun dealers must follow currently. This would allow criminal dealers to hide their illegal sales and missing firearms. Rather than being required to properly maintain their gun sale records, this legislation would simply allow them to keep such records in a box or a storage room, and would make it very difficult for the ATF to investigate and uncover dealer violations. I oppose this flawed legislation. I believe strongly that the ATF needs the authority to prosecute and eventually revoke the licenses of corrupt and criminal gun dealers. I am not alone in this view. This legislation is also opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, The American Bar Association, The Major City Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Former Director of the ATF Rex Davis, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today to oppose the Conference Report for The National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5122. The National Defense Authorization Act is Congress' only opportunity each year to seriously debate the defense polices of our Nation. Yet, when the House debated this legislation in earlier this year, the Republican Majority prevented any debate about the most important national defense issue we face: the war in Iraq. More than 2,700 American service members have lost their lives fighting in Iraq. American taxpayers have paid more than $400 billion to fund the effort. Yet, despite authorizing an additional $70 billion for the war, we have had no debate on this floor about our policy or needed strategy changes. This is an unconscionable failure of the House. The House previously made a mockery of Congress' responsibilities to guide policy by shamefully politicizing Representative John Murtha's thoughtful proposal for a phased redeployment of American troops in Iraq. Regardless of one's opinion on the best course of action in the war, the failure of Congress to entertain debate or exercise real oversight is a dereliction of our duty. Just this week, news reports revealed that a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) written in April comes to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is making America less safe. I have been telling my constituents for months that this war is endangering the lives of our service members, fueling the terrorist insurgency, and failing to make us safer. The NIE confirms this. On another important subject, Congress is also long overdue for a serious examination of our nuclear weapons policy. Fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we behave as if the Cold War never ended, maintaining a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons, many on hair-trigger missiles--far more than we need to assure our continued military dominance. It is time we honor the commitment we made when we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and begin to phase out our nuclear stockpile. This bill fails to make any changes to our nuclear posture and it is my hope that the committee will work with me to get the United States to honor our NPT pledge. I am also disappointed that this bill authorizes $9.4 billion for the missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). Since its inception during the Reagan administration, MDA has spent nearly $100 billion for missile defense programs that have repeatedly failed flight tests. This money would have been more wisely spent on other national security priorities, such as jamming devices for improvised explosive devices (IEDs), up-armoring Humvees, and radiological detection at our ports and borders. One of the craziest ideas I have ever heard is that we should deploy this missile defense system as a way to test it. Simple strategic analysis tells us that a provocative yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens the security of all Americans. This authorization bill fails to address and make needed changes to U.S. policy in any one of these three areas, which is why I oppose this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the Older American Act. I would like to thank Congressmen Buck McKeon, Pat Tiberi, George Miller and Ruben Hinojosa for their hard work reauthorizing this act. Since originally enacted in 1965, the Older Americans Act has been an important vehicle by which senior citizens in need have received nutritional support, community service employment, pension counseling services, protections against neglect and abuse, and many other services. Nutrition services through Title III of the Older Americans Act, such as the ``Meals on Wheels'' program, are essential in helping senior citizens who cannot prepare their own food to still have access to convenient and nutritious meals. The program serves those most in need, such as the aged, the less affluent, those who live alone, and members of minority groups. I was pleased that I was able to amend the Seniors Independence Act during mark-up to stop the Department of Labor from using an unfair calculation of income to determine eligibility for Title V seniors community service employment programs, SCSEP. In January 2005, the Department of Labor issued a ``Training and Employment Guidance Letter'' that unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for Title V. Instead of discounting certain forms of income like veterans' compensation, Social Security Disability Insurance, unemployment compensation, and a portion of traditional Social Security benefits, the new regulation mandated inclusion of that income, thus making fewer seniors eligible for vital services. It would be inconsistent to state that the program targets persons with greatest economic need and persons who are disabled, and then use their Social Security income or disability benefits to exclude them from participation. It would also be a mistake to hold someone's service in the Armed Forces against them in determining their eligibility for employment assistance. The amendment that I offered in the Education and the Workforce Committee restores the eligibility criteria to the pre-2005 levels, and it was unanimously agreed to. I thank Chairman McKeon and the rest of the committee for their help and cooperation on this issue. Further I have advocated for Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities, NORCs, to be included in the legislation. NORCs supported by the older Americans act would provide technical assistance to target supportive services to assist the millions of older adults living in naturally occurring retirement communities throughout the country to maintain their independence and quality of life. NORC supportive service programs are intended to increase efficiencies in the delivery of services to large populations of older adults living on their own and to reduce redundancies in the delivery of those services. They are also intended to empower older adults, and the communities within which they live, to determine the types of programs and services that they wish to receive--thus building supportive and responsive communities. For millions of older adults, NORCs are becoming the retirement homes of choice and necessity. According to AARP, upwards of one-third of the older adult population is living in a NORC setting. With the retirement of the baby boomers only a few years away, and, according to AARP, the intention of Americans 45 and older to age in place in similar fashion, we can expect NORC and NORC-like communities to grow in abundance. I am pleased the bill authorizes the Assistant Secretary to support efforts underway to develop innovative models providing for the efficient delivery of services to communities where older individuals are aging in place such as NORCs. Mr. Speaker, the Seniors Independence Act of 2006 reauthorizes vital services for some of the most vulnerable Americans, and those in greatest need. I rise in support of this legislation and I urge its passage by this body.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate about whether we should be wiretapping al Qaeda. This is a debate about whether intelligence agencies should be guided so that their efforts are most effective in protecting Americans from terrorism. The President has been sending intelligence agencies on fishing expeditions. Now, of course, when al Qaeda calls, we should be listening. And under FISA we can and we do. But the President wants to turn a vacuum cleaner on the communications of innocent Americans, with no checks and balances, trampling the rights of many in the search for a few. We need to bring some discipline to our electronic surveillance with checks and balances, checks so that we don't make dreadful mistakes. Our history is replete with mistakes, when we were sure, absolutely certain, that we knew who the enemies were: Martin Luther King, Jr.; Paul Robeson; Brandon Mayfield, an innocent lawyer in Portland; and on and on. The White House-Wilson bill, in the name of modernization, is extending the President's vacuum cleaner. The President under FISA has the power he needs within the legislative framework that will focus his power on terrorists, not on innocent Americans. Our government is strongest when all three branches of government work together, and we are weak when the President tries to act alone and in secret. This President has been acting alone and in secret, and that is why the fight against terrorists has been going so badly. This President, any President, needs the supervision of Congress and the courts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure which will not preserve principles of justice upon which this Nation was founded. How true we are to our ideals affects the clarity and decisiveness with which our soldiers can act, the safety of our troops, the motivation of our potential enemies, and the behavior of our actual enemies. This bill provides protections that are vague, slippery and imprecise. It is subject to interpretation by the President, by the Secretary of Defense, by our commanders in the theaters of operation, by our troops in the field, by our friends and enemies around the world. We need a bill that does at least two things. It should provide a clear set of guidelines consistent with American principles such as in our revised Army Field Manual; guidelines that apply to all U.S. Government personnel, on how to treat prisoners; guidelines that preserve our principles. Second, it should include verification mechanisms to monitor how prisoners and detainees are treated. One of those mechanisms is already in use by police departments and prosecutors across the country: the videotaping of interrogations. Videotaping has proven to be extremely effective at preventing not just abuse of detainees but also false allegations of abuse by detainees against their interrogators. The practice aids in interrogation, and it protects the enforcers, the prosecutors, the defendants and, hence, protects all of us. By not including such a provision in the bill, the drafters missed a real opportunity to ensure that we prevent serious problems in the future. Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have replaced a few critical provisions of H.R. 6166 with text that Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham put forward two weeks ago emphatically supporting the principle that everyone, even detainees in Guantanamo, should be allowed to examine and respond to all evidence presented against them at trial. Of course, The Rules Committee denied Members the opportunity to vote on this and other amendments on the floor today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is with much sadness that I rise to recognize a teacher and friend, Sona Polakowski. She succumbed to cancer on September 15. I join ber husband Bob, her daughter Jen, her son Mark, her family, friends and admirers in mourning her loss and in celebrating her life. Born in Jersey City, NJ, Sona resided in Lawrenceville, NJ for the past 35 years. A graduate of Seton Hall University, she was project director for math and science at the Lawrence Township Board of Education. Sona was a member of the New Jersey Education Association, National Science Teachers Association and Congregation Brothers of Israel. For the past 15 years, it has been my privilege to work with Sona to improve children's education. Her cheerful determination was her most apparent characteristic. She gave hundreds of teachers the confidence and knowledge to teach science; and, most of all, she shared her determination. Her effect on others will remain with thousands of students for generations to come. She will be missed by me, my staff, and the many teachers and others with whom she worked.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my growing concern about the situation in Sri Lanka. I have followed the state of affairs in Sri Lanka for a long time, and it is clear to me that the current level of violence threatens to return the country to open civil war. The renewed violence and rising death toll in Sri Lanka is troubling to me and many residents of my congressional district. They shared with me their apprehension about the growing levels of violence and I share their commitment to establishing a lasting peace in Sri Lanka. That is why today I wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to appoint a special envoy for Sri Lanka. I attach that letter. The appointment of a high level official with the ear of President Bush will ensure that our government is focused on doing everything in its power to bring a lasting peace to the people of Sri Lanka. Further, naming a special envoy will ensure that there is a U.S. government official solely dedicated to fostering cooperation between the two parties and working to establish a mutually agreed peace. This envoy also must have a clear mandate to monitor human rights violations on the ground and ensure that international humanitarian laws are observed by all parties. It is my hope and prayer that the violence will end and that the parties in Sri Lanka will return to the peace negotiations. America must remain committed to fostering peace in Sri Lanka and working with the international community to bring an end to the current conflict. The people have endured civil war for too long. Our Nation must do everything it can to foster a lasting peace in Sri Lanka. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 21, 2006. Hon. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to urge you to appoint a special envoy for Sri Lanka because I am deeply troubled by the situation on the ground there. This summer brought an end to the negotiated permanent ceasefire, which had been generally observed since 2002. The renewed violence and rising death toll in Sri Lanka are a grave risk to the fragile peace process and threaten a return to open civil war. News reports indicate that recent heavy fighting has resulted in hundreds of deaths and the displacement of more than 200,000 people in Sri Lanka. Parties to the conflict are not the only ones suffering. As you know, The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) recently investigated the murder of 17 aid workers, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights made clear just this week that ``there is an urgent need for the international community to monitor the unfolding human rights situation.'' Naming a special envoy for Sri Lanka would further emphasize our government's commitment to creating a lasting peace. It is essential that the U.S. envoy be a high-level official with the ear of President Bush and you. The envoy's mandate should be clear and must include efforts to increase monitoring of human rights violations. The citizens of Sri Lanka have endured civil war for too long. We must do everything we can to foster a lasting peace for the country. Again, I request that you appoint a special envoy for Sri Lanka to help bring peace to the country. Sincerely, Rush Holt, Member of Congress.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for 6 years now, the middle-class families in the United States have been sold out by the leadership here in Washington. Wages are worse than stagnant. Families are paying more for energy, health care and education, and yet real household income for working- age families has declined every year of the Bush administration, dropping nearly $3,000 in real terms. Personal debt is at the highest in many years, and America's debt has climbed 50 percent, to more than $28,000 per person since Bush took office, and will double to more than $11 trillion. I wonder if Americans realize that Republican leadership has stubbornly and consistently refused to accept Democratic calls to have pay-as-you-go budgets. The Democratic leadership would take our Nation in a new direction and begin to repair the economy for regular middle- class American families.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to object strongly to the voter disenfranchisement proposal before us. According to the Election Assistance Commission's comprehensive Survey of the 2004 election, there were more than 197 million voting- age American citizens at that time. According to the Brennan Center for Justice in its September 2006 voter identification study, as many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and maybe will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. Thus, the very first thing this bill will do is disenfranchise as many as 20 million eligible voters. Who are these 20 million voters? The poor. The elderly. The disabled. Persons of color. Native Americans. Students. Why would anyone vote in favor of disenfranchising these citizens? The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was an imperfect bill, but it did reach a bipartisan compromise on voter identification. HAVA's already- existing requirements for voter identification and the integrity of voter registration rolls go on for pages. Among the requirements: States must make ``a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters;'' Voter registration applications may not be ``accepted or processed'' unless they include an applicants driver's license number or, in the case of voters who don't have one, ``the last 4 digits of the applicants Social Security number;'' or, in the case of voters with neither, a ``unique identifying number'' assigned by election officials; First time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must show photo ID at the polls when they vote. Voters can't get around that requirement by voting absentee--first time voters who registered by mail and did not present ID must send a copy of a photo ID with their mail-in ballot. And HAVA provides for criminal penalties for violations for the foregoing--``any individual who knowingly commits fraud or knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the naturalization, citizenry, or alien registry of such citizen . . . shall be fined, imprisoned [for up to five years], or both.'' The measure before us is a solution in search of a problem. The Department of Justice (DOJ), in its ``Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity for 2004,'' reported that at the end of 2004, the Public Integrity Section had approximately 133 election crime matters pending nationwide. That is an average of just over two cases per state for the entire year--hardly an avalanche. In addition, most of the cases described in the report concerned campaign finance violations, not voter fraud. Only one described a vote-buying scheme, and none referred specifically to non-citizen or double voting. On the other hand, the same Report noted that a total of 1,213 public officials had been charged with corruption in 2004, that 1,020 of them had been convicted of corruption, and that 419 cases remained pending. In other words, according to the DOJ's own findings, the problem of corruption among public official is at the very least ten times worse than the problem of citizens cheating in elections. Meanwhile, other studies have found that instances of double voting and voting using another's identity are virtually non-existent. Washington State--a study of 2.8 million ballots cast in 2004 showed that only 0.0009 percent of them reflected double voting or voting in the name of deceased individuals. Ohio--a statewide survey found a mere four instances out of more than 9 million votes cast where ineligible persons voted or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004--a rate of 0.00004%. Georgia--(which recently passed one of the strictest voter ID laws, which was subsequently struck down); Secretary of State Cathy Cox stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the impersonation of a registered voter at the polls. I have introduced legislation, the Electoral Fairness Act of 2006 (H.R. 4989), that would require that all voters, upon being duly registered, be issued a durable voter registration card at no cost to the voter, ``which shall serve as proof that the individual is duly registered to vote'' at the polling place which services the individual's address. The bill would preserve HAVA's existing voter ID requirements, but add no more, an the voter registration cards would serve strictly to protect voters who are removed from the voter rolls wrongfully or erroneously. My legislation would protect the 1.2 million voters who were, in fact, wrongfully denied access to a regular ballot in 2004 when they showed up at polling places. The legislation before us, in the absence of meaningful or documented justification, would leave those 1.2 million voters in jeopardy of wrongful disenfranchisement and add 20 million more to the pile. In the name of solving a problem that is evidently a tiny problem these legislators--at great expense to individuals and to states--would add requirements that will turn away legitimate, deserving, honest voters. This is poll tax, pure and simple, and I urge my colleagues to vote it down. Groups Opposing H.R. 4844 A. Philip Randolph Institute; ACORN; Advancement Project; Aguila Youth Leadership Institute; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona; American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Immigration Lawyers Association; American Policy Center; Americans for Democratic Action; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Consumers Council; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Arizona Students' Association; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote); and Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center for Digital Democracy; Common Cause; Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility; Concerned Foreign Service Officers; Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Consumer Action; Cyber Privacy Project; Democratic Women's Working Group; Demos : A Network for Ideas & Action; Electronic Privacy Information Center; Emigrantes Sin Fronteras; Fairfax County Privacy Council; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hispanic Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona; Intertribal Council of Arizona; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal Momentum; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Congress of American Indians; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Education Association; National Korean American Service & Education Consortium; National Urban League; National Voting Rights Institute; Navajo Nation; New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc./NYPIRG; Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; and Project for Arizona's Future. Protection and Advocacy System; RainbowPUSH Coalition; Republican Liberty Caucus; SEIU Local 5 Arizona; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Somos America/We Are America; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; The Multiracial Activist; The Rutherford Institute; Tohono O'odham Nation; Transgender Law Center; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Auto Workers; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; United States Student Association; United Steelworkers; UNITE-HERE; Velvet Revolution; William C. Velasquez Institute; and YWCA USA.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, can you, or another member, tell me why we are considering this legislation? Why when we have the largest prison population in the world, why when we have one of the worst recidivism rates in the world, why when we have enormous expense from crime and imprisonment, and why when America's historic and ethical attitude towards crime is based predominantly on a redemptive view of human nature, why are we doing this?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last month President Bush signed into law the so-called Pension Protection Act. I opposed this legislation because it fails to address America's retirement security crisis--in fact, it accelerates the move away from defined-benefit pension plans and it makes it easier for companies to eliminate pensions or dump their obligations onto the backs of taxpayers. It also treats the pensions of CEOs and top executives as more sacred than those of workers. The Federal Government should ensure that, after 30 years of service, workers will receive the pensions that they have been promised and that they have earned. Unfortunately, this bill does not live up to that responsibility. I opposed this legislation when it originally passed the House, and I had hoped that its shortcomings would be addressed in conference. I am disappointed that Democrats were excluded from the conference committee. This exclusion was a disservice to all American workers who will not benefit from their knowledge and experience in the subject. Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the House bill were not addressed in conference. Far from protecting pensions for American workers, this legislation will allow companies to under-fund plans by simply promising to increase the contributions in future years. As the financial obligations on these companies grow, however, they will likely freeze or terminate pension plans, as they no longer make business sense to continue. Some provisions blatantly discriminate against workers in favor of executives. The legislation allows plans that are only 60 percent funded to continue increasing the lavish benefits that executives enjoy. However, a plan must be 80 percent funded before employees can get any additional assistance. It is fundamentally unfair to hold these two groups to two different standards. Most troubling to me is how American workers and retirees are increasingly being told, ``You are on your own.'' As President Bush continues to advocate privatization of Social Security, and more and more companies convert their defined-benefit pensions to defined- contribution plans, retirees are having the rug pulled from under their feet. We have failed to apply the lesson that broad-based economic security facilitates sustainable growth, innovation, and productivity. America's employees deserve retirement security. President Bush should have signed a bill that would protect employees, discourage companies from freezing or terminating their plans, address the financial shortfall at the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and treat all employees equally. Although the ``Pension Protection Act'' is now law, our commitment to employees who are so integral to our economy is not fulfilled. As we come off of Labor Day, I urge this body to assure the financial security of American employees through policies that achieve economic growth that is broad-based, not concentrated at the top of the income ladder.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of health information technology, which holds great promise for reducing medical errors, lowering costs, expediting diagnoses and treatments, and facilitating quality care. However, I must oppose this legislation due to the complete lack of a mechanism for safeguarding patient privacy, opening up the dangerous possibility of identity theft or personal infringement. Estimates vary as to the amount of money that health information technology will save our healthcare system, but it could surely be in the tens of billions of dollars. Making health information accessible electronically by health care providers with the proper clearance would improve the quality of care by getting providers to patients' medical history quickly and efficiently. This would reduce medical errors, increase patient satisfaction, and decrease the number of lawsuits. Unfortunately, the bill that the House passed will not accomplish any of these goals. Providers do not have access to any funding assistance, which they will need to purchase health information technology. We should be making grants and loans available to physicians so that they can take advantage of the promise of health IT, realizing the promise of improved care. A larger problem is that this bill will jeopardize the privacy of medical records. We have all seen the unconscionable and irresponsible loss of sensitive personal information by federal agencies like the Veterans Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Transportation. This loss of personal information is a breach of trust by the federal government. Passing this legislation without reasonable privacy safeguards will only put patients at greater risk. We should be doing more to protect the patients' names, medical history, and financial information. Unfortunately, this legislation abdicates that responsibility. The Rules Committee even disallowed consideration of amendments to accomplish that reasonable and important goal. Whereas the Senate worked on a bipartisan basis to pass a comprehensive and responsible bill, the House has wasted an opportunity to improve healthcare and reduce costs for all Americans. I support health information technology, and I believe in the promise that it holds. Unfortunately, I cannot support legislation that makes American patients more likely to have their personal information stolen and their privacy violated.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California. Like every American, I spent the past week reflecting on that terrible day 5 years ago. I too attended a number of memorials and observances during the week. We came out of 9/11/2001 mourning with the families, praising the first responders, and vowing to catch and punish those responsible and vowing to do everything possible to prevent a recurrence. For the families affected, well over 100 in my district in central New Jersey alone, the pain will never go away. The hole in their hearts and their lives is mirrored by the void that remains at Ground Zero, and that in part is what I wanted to talk about, the unfinished work in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Today, Congress, following the President, has veered off course. We have engaged in a war with an undefined enemy, undefined objectives and no plan for success. We have suffered a tremendous loss of American life, money and international prestige, the latter almost entirely self-inflicted. We have alienated and embittered traditional allies, some of whom believe we might even attack them at some point in the future, and we have given our enemies, unfortunately, ample material with which they can recruit new terrorists. The families left behind on 9/11 made a clear request of us: make Americans safer from terrorism. We have not taken those specific steps, even though we should have taken them. What are those specific steps? Well, my friend from Ohio, the majority leader, and the chairman, they know. Every Member knows. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission worked hard and well and presented a specific list on everything from securing our borders to screening shipments in ports. By the way, the list did not include a suggestion that we invade Iraq. The commission gave these specific recommendations, a blueprint on how to protect Americans. Not long ago, the 9/11 Commission gave the government about two dozen inadequate grades for failing to take those specific steps to protect Americans. So instead of self-congratulatory and divisive resolutions, let us have an up-or-down vote to implement each of their recommendations.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, because of a briefing in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I was absent for rollcall vote 414 on an amendment by Congressman Towns. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''. I ask that this statement be placed in the correct place in the Record.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res 384, recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, the first intercollegiate fraternity established for African-Americans. From the first literary fraternity, Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776 at the College of William and Mary through the subsequent development of social fraternities starting with Kappa Alpha in 1825, college fraternities have sought to foster close friendship and personal development. In the early 20th century, Black students were often excluded from the social organizations at many colleges and universities. Alpha Phi Alpha was founded in 1906 at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, to provide associations and support among African-American students. With its cardinal principles of ``Manly Deeds, Scholarship and Love for All Mankind,'' over 175,000 men have been initiated into the fraternity and there are now over 700 chapters worldwide. Among its membership are a number of prominent figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Owens, Thurgood Marshall and our colleague Charles Rangel. Aside from the lasting friendships that many young men have found within the fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha has dedicated itself to a number of philanthropic programs. Alpha works closely with organizations such as Head Start, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the NAACP and Habitat for Humanity. Alpha Phi Alpha has also created a number of its own programs such as the Go-To-High-School, Go-To-College program and ``A Voteless People is a Hopeless People.'' Alpha Phi Alpha also submitted the request for The Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation which was authorized by President Clinton in 1998. Alpha Phi Alpha has two chapters in and around my district in central New Jersey, the Sigma Xi Chapter at Monmouth University and the Delta Iota Chapter at Rutgers University. I am proud of the role they play in enriching their surrounding communities. From its origins as a social network for African-American college students to its continuing philanthropic efforts, Alpha Phi Alpha is indeed worthy of recognition and I am proud to stand in support of this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Oman Free Trade Agreement (OFTA). The Bush administration has again presented the Congress with a flawed trade agreement. I support vigorous international trade, but it should also be fair trade. The inadequate labor provisions in this agreement are almost identical to those contained in the flawed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), which I opposed. After the contentious vote on DR-CAFTA, the United States Trade Representative said he would address the concerns we raised in future agreements. Unfortunately nothing has changed. OFTA does little to improve the poor protection for workers in Oman. The labor provisions in this trade agreement are lackluster, and will be very hard to enforce. This trade agreement asks Oman only to meet the lowest possible dominator of labor law. We can and we must do better. Currently, Oman labor laws do not provide for the freedom to associate or the rights to organize and bargain collectively, the most fundamental of workers rights. There are no protections for workers who want to strike in Oman, and there are no independent unions. Oman has said it will change, but it does not have to. These promises should be included as requirements in this agreement, not in unenforceable side letters. As I have said before, international trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. It has enormous potential to raise standards across the globe, disseminate technology and encourage economic growth. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availability is not the single goal of trade. Trade should also lift the global standard of living. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in workers' rights, environmental matters, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. Like the DR-CAFTA and Bahrain Free Trade Agreements, the Oman Free Trade Agreement does not pass these tests. The agreement before us fails both parties: it will not help either America's or Oman's workers. Each new trade agreement entered into by the United States ought to be closely scrutinized, and ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable. We know how to craft such agreements, for example the U.S.-Jordan Agreement of 2000 was a fair and good agreement. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has abandoned that successful format and pushed ahead with a trade policy that only looks at the bottom line, rather than the workers who produced the goods or the environment they live in and rely upon for sustainable growth. We need to go back to the successful format that incorporates American values into our trade agreements. This would ensure that U.S. companies and employees are not forced to compete with countries that have no or weak labor laws, poor working conditions, and a willingness to debase the environment for the short term. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support OFTA or other flawed trade agreements.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5682. I do this reluctantly, because I am a strong supporter of India. But I cannot turn my back on my life's work on nuclear non-proliferation. Prior to coming to Congress, I worked at the U.S. Department of State as an arms control expert. I spent each day there trying to reduce the threat our nation faced from proliferation of nuclear weapons. I also learned first hand how effectively the international non-proliferation regime monitors existing nuclear states and prevents sensitive nuclear technology from falling into the wrong hands. I also worked for 10 years at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory to research and develop fusion energy, because it would be an abundant source of energy that would not lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I am also a lifelong supporter of India. In fact, I first traveled to India more than 30 years ago. When I came to Congress, the first caucus I joined was the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans. Since then, my interest in India and my respect for its citizens have only grown. That is why I believe it is essential that our nation increase its cooperation with India. India is our friend and a strong ally. The ties that bind our nations go to the core of our democratic values. India is the world's largest democracy, she possesses a vibrant economy, and she has an unwavering commitment to ending terrorism. America is fortunate to have an ally that shares our common vision and we need to grow our relationship by increasing cooperation on other economic, educational, and security concerns. But I have strong reservations about making individual exceptions in our nation's laws for nuclear export to India or any other state. The non-proliferation regime we have is far from perfect, but it has proven to be remarkably successful in deterring the spread of nuclear material. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 is the centerpiece of international nuclear nonproliferation structure. The NPT ensured that today we are dealing with only a handful of problematic states, such as Iran, rather than the dozens of nuclear states that might have existed otherwise. These historical successes highlight the essential role that the international non-proliferation regime has played and why it must not be undermined. The United States was instrumental in creating the NPT, and now is not the time to stop our leadership on this important issue. The United States should not send the wrong message to the global community. We must continue to be a leader on nuclear non-proliferation if we hope to prevent Iran, North Korea, or others from acquiring nuclear weapons. During the 2004 presidential campaign, both President Bush and Senator Kerry agreed on one thing: nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism are the gravest threat that our country faces. The threat of nuclear terrorism is underscored today because of the recent actions of Iran and the continued work by North Korea to develop nuclear technology. That is why we need to be doing more to strengthen and support the international nuclear non-proliferation structure, not weaken it. Some non-proliferation experts have raised concerns that this bill would violate Article I of the NPT. Additionally this bill would create an exception to the rule, and thereby create a new rule. I have been impressed by India and I do believe that she has been one of the most responsible nuclear states in the world. And unlike her neighbor, India has not engaged in wholesale proliferation of nuclear technology. The bill before us today would make changes to the Atomic Energy Act which would allow for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology and material to India. This would be the first time the conditions for nuclear cooperation in the Act were changed for an individual state. We should not make these changes lightly. We need to understand the implications of what we are doing for the international nuclear non- proliferation regime. As well, we must also be clear. This is not the final vote the House will take on this important issue. Under the provisions contained in this bill, Congress will again have to review and vote to support nuclear cooperation once the final text of the cooperation agreement is finalized. For that reason, I remain unsure why Congress is considering or approving these significant changes to our nuclear non-proliferation structure. The Nuclear Suppliers Group still needs to give its approval to this proposed nuclear cooperation agreement. As well, India needs to complete its negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency on a new safeguards agreement. These are not just minor points, not just iotas in the agreement. They are central to the issue. What would be wrong with waiting for the final text to be negotiated and these important steps to be taken before we change our nation's laws to allow for nuclear material transfer? That said, I remain troubled that providing nuclear technology to India would create a double standard. Historically, the United States has only provided nuclear technology to states that are parties to the NPT. This bill would allow for cooperation with India, despite the fact the India has not signed or ratified the NPT, and had previously developed a secret nuclear weapons program. Additionally, I am worried that this legislation does not require India to cap or even limit its fissile material production. The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France have all publicly announced that they are no longer producing fissile material for military use. Even China is believed to have stopped producing fissile material. Without a requirement to limit fissile material production, the United States is tacitly endorsing further production. We should not help any state in the world increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons, especially at a time when we are reducing our own stockpile. I am also concerned that this legislation does not require that all of India's nuclear reactors be placed under international safeguards. That means that some of India's reactors will be used for military purposes and kept outside safeguards and the nonproliferation regime. The whole purpose of safeguards is to ensure that fissile material is not diverted to build nuclear weapons secretly. We need full scope safeguards on all of India's reactors to ensure that U.S. technology or nuclear material is not being diverted for military purposes. In effect, we would be giving approval to the existence of undeclared, uninspected production of fissile material. Further, India is not required to classify her new reactors as civilian rather than military. Some have argued that nuclear cooperation is needed to help meet India's growing energy needs. If that is the case then every single new reactor should be civilian energy producing facilities. We should be doing more to discourage India from expanding her military nuclear program, rather than making it easier. This bill makes some improvements on the legislation that the Administration submitted, and I am glad that some of my colleagues who share my concerns tried to improve it. Yet, even with these changes I do not think it wise to shred one of the few nonproliferation instruments we have. I am sorry that before they came to us the Administration did not negotiate a better agreement which would not jeopardize decades of nonproliferation work. I am also sorry we have not approached this matter to obtain the active partnership of such a respected and important country as India in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation around the world. India teamed with us and other countries could be a most influential leader in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons around the world. I remain convinced that nuclear cooperation could be achieved with India, however this is not the proper way to do so. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill which would undermine the NPT and our nation's long history of nuclear nonproliferation. I would oppose this deal if it was with any country outside of the NPT because I would have the same concerns. But I also know that despite my vote on this bill it will be approved by wide margins. I hope I am proven wrong, that this bill will not undermine our nation's nonproliferation efforts, but I regret that I cannot see how that can be.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there will be a time when the history of the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is written and we will look back and see when the last thread of the nuclear non-proliferation regime was shredded. We can all talk at length about the details of this cooperative agreement. We can talk about what a good friend India is and how responsible they have been. We can talk about the so-called reality of an imperfect ability to control the militarization of nuclear reactions. But the history will say that with this agreement the world lost the last bit of an international tool to control the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The regime will have been killed. All we will have left is our ability to jawbone with our allies and threaten our enemies. Countries will work out whatever deals they can, two by two. This is a very dangerous moment. If we really believe that nuclear proliferation and loose nukes are the greatest threat to world peace and security, as I do, then we should be holding on to every tool we can find to prevent that threat. We should also be working with India to strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation regime, not collaborating with India to destroy it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise in support of S. 203, the National Heritage Act, which includes designation of the Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey as a National Heritage Area. What a great and important story we have to tell our children, that we have to tell the world: the story of our War of Independence. And the land, the houses, the bridges and so much of New Jersey today tell that story. As many of my colleagues know, New Jersey is often referred to as the crossroads of the American Revolution. For a number of reasons, thousands of troops crisscrossed the State and fought on our soil. The State's strategic location between the British stronghold of New York and the rebel capital in Philadelphia meant that New Jersey, New Jersey citizens, were at the crossroads. In fact, New Jersey had more military engagements during the Revolutionary War than any other State. Although historians may know this, some of us are working hard to make sure that the role of New Jersey during the Revolution is understood more broadly. Some of the most important events of the war, especially the pivotal battles of Trenton and Princeton, took place in New Jersey. New Jersey has hundreds of remnants of the war today surviving, including over 250 National Register Revolutionary War sites that are included in this heritage area designation covering 15 counties. Many traces of our Nation's Revolutionary War heritage still exist: mines, mills, encampment sites, battlegrounds, and barracks. Some of the sites include the Hunt House, in Hopewell, New Jersey, the first headquarters of General Washington as he chased the British from New York to Pennsylvania; or the old barracks in Trenton, where the troops were housed; Rockingham House, where General Washington wrote his farewell message to the troops; or a road through the woods, now long abandoned, on which the soldiers marched to the battle of Monmouth; the Sandy Hook Lighthouse, which was the guardian of New York Harbor and used by both British and American armies. The list goes on and on, and that is why this designation of a heritage area is so important for New Jersey. Most notable in our history books, of course, is the famous crossing of the Delaware by General Washington and his men. What happened at the crossing of Delaware is a story that must be told again and again so all generations will know this military feat and the new life it gave to the American Revolution. By the winter of 1776, the War for Independence was going badly. General Washington and his Continental Army had experienced defeat after defeat and retreated to Pennsylvania for the winter. It was brutally cold and morale was low. Many were losing faith in the leadership of General Washington. By late afternoon on Christmas Day 1776, over 2,400 troops began to cross the icy water of the Delaware. The weather made the operation difficult. The troops were forced to fight their way through blinding winter weather. The sleet and snow proved too much for two of the divisions to the south, and General Washington's troops made the attack alone. Against all odds, Washington and his soldiers completed the crossing, marched silently to Trenton, with cannon, and on Christmas night arrived taking the Hessian garrison completely by surprise. This engagement, followed by the pivotal Battle of Princeton, has been called ``the beginning of the winning.'' Military engagements were fought throughout New Jersey, and they gave the first glimpse to the world that the American people might succeed in this fight for independence. In New Jersey, also, there was the crossroads of ideas. There were people loyal to the Crown and those who were loyal to Adams and Washington and the other revolutionaries. The difference was contested within families, in towns, and on farmsteads. New Jersey really was at the crux of the Revolution, the crossroads of the American Revolution. I became involved in this effort to establish the Crossroads when I first came to Congress in 1999. And with the guidance and leadership from historians and planners, champions of open space preservation, such as Dr. Ted Stiles, I developed the concept of this heritage designation. I sought the assistance of my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), and we were able to see the passage of legislation that would direct the Park Service to conduct a feasibility study of the region. We passed this feasibility study with flying colors, obtaining an enthusiastic report from the Park Service that New Jersey had a rich history and many surviving remnants of the War of Independence that make the region a fine candidate for a heritage area. Since the study, many State legislators, local governments, and other organizations have endorsed the idea of establishing the Crossroads of the American Revolution Heritage Area. After the initial findings from the National Park Service in August 2002, Representative Frelinghuysen and I introduced the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Act. Finally, today, we have it before us on the floor of this body. Establishing this heritage area is an important way to preserve the historic remnants that will allow the telling of New Jersey's role in the building of this great Nation. It combines historic preservation, environmental protection, education, recreation, open space acquisition, travel, and tourism. The creation of the heritage area means a great deal for all of these organizations, private and public, in New Jersey that are working in all of these areas to acquire open space, to provide for recreation and education and environmental protection. Community leaders and local governments who care deeply about preserving open space and protecting historic sites will work with the local management agency to achieve these goals. The National Heritage Area will be, I think, important for the education not just of the children of New Jersey but for the people of this country. Everyone should know what New Jersey brought to the American Revolution, and preserving these sites and tying them together under this theme will certainly help in this endeavor. Our current Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, before he left Capitol Hill, succeeded in carrying this through the other body across the Capitol, and I want to thank all of those involved over the past years that have been instrumental in designating the Crossroads of the American Revolution Heritage Area. I see no better way to honor New Jersey and the people who were instrumental during the American Revolution than by establishing this heritage area.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Filner, for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I would also particularly like to thank Mr. Brown of South Carolina, my partner in this bill, for all of his help in moving the bill through Congress. Madam Speaker, our Nation was built by citizen soldiers, whom all too often we fail to repay for their service. We should be giving them employment opportunities, the opportunities they deserve. By virtue of their discipline, their work ethic, their clear thinking, veterans make outstanding employees; and we should be doing all we can to help them find jobs, and yet we know veterans return from the field and have trouble breaking into the workforce. This bill is an affirmation of the commitment of Congress to encourage all employers, government at all levels, nonprofits, trade associations, and the private sector, to think of veterans when making hiring decisions. The bill itself calls upon the President to proclaim an annual Hire a Veteran Week and to use the occasion to remind all employers of the value of hiring veterans. Let there be no doubt, the need for a renewed national focus on veterans employment is real. If you look at the Bureau of Labor statistics, for example, and take the age cohort of 18 to 24 years old, you will find among veterans recently returned from the front, unemployment is at 18.7 percent compared with 9.9 in the general population in that age cohort. The data about women actually are worse. And these aren't simply numbers. These are men and women who put on our country's uniform to protect each and every one of us. We can and we must do what we can to help them find good-paying jobs, to use their skills to contribute to our society. This is especially true now with our country at war in multiple theaters of operation, as we are minting new veterans every day. For them to make a successful transition from military to civilian life, their employment, their job training, their readjustment needs must be a top priority for our country. I would ask my colleagues, how could we tolerate a high unemployment rate among veterans, higher than among the general population that has not served in uniform? As the original GI bill showed us, when we invest in our veterans, our society reaps the rewards many times over. The same philosophy should guide us as we seek to help veterans obtain and sustain meaningful good-paying jobs in their civilian lives. This bill is a step in that direction. Again, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the committee and Mr. Brown for their help. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the chairman and ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Filner, for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I also want to thank my colleague and partner on this bill, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, for all of his help in moving this bill through the Congress. Our Nation was built by citizen-soldiers, but too often, we fail to repay their service properly by giving them the employment, education, and other opportunities they deserve. By virtue of their discipline, work ethic, and clear thinking, veterans make outstanding employees, and we should be doing all we can to help them find good jobs that benefit them and their families. This bill is an affirmation of Congress's commitment to encourage all employers--government at all levels, nonprofits, trade associations, and the private sector--to think of veterans first when making hiring decisions. The bill itself calls upon the President to proclaim an annual ``Hire a Veteran'' week and to use that occasion to remind all employers of the value of hiring veterans. I hope the President acts on this legislation swiftly, because the need for a renewed national focus on veterans' employment is real and urgent. According to the most recent U.S. Labor Department data, in August 2005, 20- to 24-year-old veterans had an unemployment rate of 18.7 percent compared with their nonveteran counterparts. For all of 2005, the annual rate was 15.6 percent for 20- to 24-year-old veterans compared with 8.7 percent for nonveterans in that age group. These aren't simply numbers; these are men and women who put on our country's uniform to protect each and every one of us. We can and must do more to help them find good-paying jobs that allow them to build a career and a life in the Nation they served and protected. This is especially true now, with our country at war in multiple theaters of operation and with tens of thousands of new veterans being created every year. For them to make a successful transition from military to civilian life, veterans' employment, job training, and readjustment need to be a top national priority. As the original GI bill showed us, when we invest in our veterans, our society reaps the rewards many times over. The same philosophy should guide us as we seek to help veterans obtain and sustain meaningful, good-paying jobs in their civilian lives. This bill is a first step in that direction, but we need to do more. We need to ensure that within both the DoD and VA budgets, we devote the necessary resources to transition assistance, job retraining--where necessary-- and related activities that help veterans in their search for civilian careers. Again, I thank my friends, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, and California, Mr. Filner, for their help and support in securing passage of this bill today.