Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act marked a watershed moment in American history, and I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the many ways in which it has transformed our democracy. On Monday night, it was my great honor to join Representative Lewis; Wade Henderson, the Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and hundreds of civil rights leaders at the commencement of the National Conference Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1965, one could not have imagined a room in Washington, DC, full of elected leaders from various racial, ethnic, religious and socio-economic backgrounds. Today there are 81 members of Congress that are of African-American, Latino, Asian, and Native American descent, as well as thousands of minorities in State and local elected offices across the Nation. Due in large part to the Voting Rights Act, America's leadership is a reflection of our diversity. The struggle for enfranchisement has been fought by citizens themselves to obtain and protect their right to vote. Representative Lewis and the hundreds of civil rights activists who joined him on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in March 1965 showed courage and perseverance in the face of violent opposition. Unfortunately, they did not win the struggle for total voter enfranchisement on that fateful day in Alabama. The shocking and unconscionable murders of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney--killed in June of 1964 for registering black voters in Mississippi--did not win that struggle. But the sacrifices of voting rights activists over the past century have paved the way for the enfranchisement that we all seek. The Voting Rights Act has made progress possible, but there is still more to be done. When I speak with students, I often ask, ``What is the greatest invention in history?'' Knowing of my background in physics, they usually suggest some scientific invention. In fact, I believe the greatest invention is our system of Constitutional democracy. It has transformed not just America, but the world, demonstrating that peaceful and productive government with the consent of the governed is possible. That consent is given by the vote. Thomas Paine wrote that the right to vote is ``the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' For that reason, assuring the continued effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act is of monumental importance. Application of the Voting Rights Act faces challenges in the 21st century. The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections demonstrated that disenfranchisement, though legally abolished, still exists in practice. In order to preserve influence of the Voting Rights Act, key protections of which are scheduled to expire in 2007, we must address voting irregularities that occurred in recent elections. Mr. Speaker, I commend the work of the 89th Congress and honor the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. The work of voting activists has transformed America and helped advance the cause of universal suffrage. We must work to preserve and advance its legacy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy legislation that we are debating on the House floor today. As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one of the Nation's premiere alternative energy research labs I understand the complex and challenging nature of moving toward sustainable energy sources. Having served in this body for more than 6 years, I understand the difficulties in balancing competing interests to obtain a policy that benefits the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike a balance that provides a productive and clear vision that will lead this Nation towards energy independence. The Energy Policy Act does not provide any solutions to reaching energy independence or reducing our destruction of the world the next generation will inherit. This legislation provides subsidies to industries that produce environmentally damaging and finite energy sources instead of investing in research that would allow our children to be the first generation to realize a nation that is powered largely by renewable energy sources. It is a bill that is designed to meet the needs of special interests instead of demanding higher standards for corporate America. Instead of investing in cleaner, long term solutions, this bill brushes aside our Nation's future energy needs in order to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas and other traditional energy industries to promote short-term, polluting energy sources. These tax incentives should not be going to industries that are thriving, but should be used to invest in our future by increasing research funding for alternative energy sources such as wind energy, fuel cells and fusion. The domination of special interests means much more than wealthy industries receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer. It means that more of our children will suffer from asthma because we did not demand stricter regulations on polluters. It means that children across this Nation will drink contaminated water because we chose to insulate an industry from being held accountable for their negligent actions. It means that our children will not have the opportunity to take their children to view the natural treasures that inspired them in their youth because we needed to open up these lands to allow oil and gas companies to expand their operations. We will never drill our way to independence domestically, yet we have an energy bill that is stuck in the past that yet again seeks to drill a little deeper, in more places. This legislation includes a permanent authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska without preserving any key wilderness and cultural areas in this 23 million acre region. Further, this bill authorizes an inventory of the oil and gas resources underneath the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS--a first step towards reversing the two decade moratorium that prohibits oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill also fails to protect American consumers. I am frustrated that an amendment I offered with Representative Nancy Johnson to ensure that consumers receive accurate information regarding the fuel efficiency of automobiles was gutted because it was characterized as an attempt to change CAFE standards. This is a consumer protection issue and not an attack on the automobile industry that vigorously opposed our legislation. Americans do care how efficient their car is, and it is a failure of our government that we cannot provide consumers that walk into a showroom to pick out a new car with a sticker in the window that reflects accurate information on the car's city and highway gas mileage. Before I conclude my remarks I would like to recognize that there are some good points in this bill. For example, the bill provides continuing support for the highly successful Energy Star program at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, which promotes energy efficiency in buildings and products. The bill also authorizes annual 10 percent increases in research on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Additionally, it includes a few creative ways to reduce the consumption of energy, such as Representative Markey's provision to extend daylight savings time by one month. We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our Nation's energy needs. On behalf of the residents of the 12th District, I pledge to continue to work toward the development of a balanced, comprehensive energy plan--one that finds environmentally friendly, sustainable ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and slow the degradation of our planet.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. This legislation will not reduce medical liability premiums, and it unfairly and arbitrarily discriminates against those most severely injured by medical errors. I have consistently heard from physicians in Central New Jersey that the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance represents a growing crisis. The rising premiums have compelled many physicians to leave the state or leave medicine altogether. My wife is a general practice physician, so I fully appreciate the gravity of the situation facing many doctors. The rising cost of insurance poses obvious dangers for access to care, particularly for populations most in need. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a bill that does not reduce premiums for physicians and imposes an arbitrary cap on damages for the most severely injured victims of malpractice or negligence. Capping non-economic damages at $250,000 for patients who have won a medical malpractice tort will not result in lower insurance premiums for physicians. Just listen to what the insurance industry itself has said. ``We have not promised price reductions with tort reform,'' said Dennis Kelly, an American Insurance Association spokesman in the Chicago Tribune. In fact, over the past few years, payouts for medical malpractice cases have remained flat while premiums have continued to rise, in some cases doubling. Because of insurance companies over-charging doctors for insurance, the fifteen largest insurers have accumulated a surplus that is double what they actually need to pay claims. We should be debating how to most effectively rebate this surplus to the doctors, rather than looking for ways to reward them for the squeeze that they are executing on our healthcare system. The insurance industry is gouging medical doctors and is trying to use patients as a scapegoat. Imposing a cap on damages inherently affects the patients most severely injured by malpractice or negligence. Setting the cap at $250,000 is an insult to all those who have had their lives permanently changed by medical errors. The figure is lifted directly from the 1975 California MICRA law. Adjusted for inflation, this amount would be close to $1 million in 2005 dollars. $250,000 does not come close to compensating for loss of life or permanent disability or disfigurement. I am disappointed that, for the third time in three years, the Rules Committee has eliminated any opportunity to amend the legislation. I am particularly disappointed that the Rules Committee disallowed substitute legislation by Ranking Members John Conyers and John Dingell. Their bill would weed out frivolous lawsuits, require insurance companies to pass savings on to health care providers, and provide targeted assistance to the physicians and communities who need it the most. That Congress is not permitted even to consider this legislation as an alternative demonstrates that the bill we have before us cannot survive on its own merits. As liability insurance premiums continue to rise for physicians across the country, the Republican leadership continues to prescribe the same tired and ineffective legislation. For good reason, this bill has not survived the legislative process for the past three years, yet we are once again debating whether to enrich insurance companies at the expense of victims of medical malpractice and negligence. We need a comprehensive, fair, and effective approach to lowering insurance premiums for physicians. The legislation we have before us is none of the above. I encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment with the Interior Appropriations bill that we are considering today. Although I will reluctantly vote for this legislation, I am concerned with the reduction in funding for many important domestic programs. While I am pleased that this conference bill does not completely eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fun, (LWCF), as in the House- passed version, I am still disappointed that this program only received $30 million, which is one-third of what it received last year. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in assisting local and State governments preserve vital open spaces. This program was established in 1965 to address rapid overdevelopment by increasing the number of high quality recreation areas and facilities and by increasing the local involvement in land preservation. To achieve this goal, the fund was separated into two components, one portion of the fund serves as an account from which the Federal government draws from to acquire land and the other portion is distributed to states in a matching grant program. New Jersey has been active in seeking grants from this program and has received funds from the LWCF that were used to preserve treasures such as the Pinelands National Reserve and the Delaware National Scenic River. In addition, LWCF has provided more that $111 million in state and local grants to build softball fields, rehabilitate playgrounds and to expand state parks. Urban and highly developed regions, such as the region that I represent, will suffer the most from the elimination of the LWCF state grant program. The LWCF matching-grant program has proven to be a successful way to overcome the high cost of living that makes land acquisition and renewal projects costly in these regions. The steep reduction in funding for this program will leave local leaders without the capital necessary to enhance the quality of life in their communities. This bill also cuts other domestic programs that benefit all Americans and future generations. This legislation only provides $900 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--a reduction of $200 million from last year. This is vitally important to keeping drinking water clean and safe by supporting wastewater treatment, nonpoint source pollution and watershed and estuary management. Additionally, this bill cuts Federal land acquisition funding by 25 percent and reduces funding for construction projects in our national parks, refuges and forests by 10 percent. Despite my reservations with cuts to important Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Department of Interior, DOI, programs, I am pleased that this bill does the right thing and finally provides the VA the funds it needs to continue the delivery of care to our veterans through the end of the current fiscal year. This month, our Nation marked the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans' Administration, the forerunner of today's Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as we celebrate the VA's many achievements, particularly in the field of medical research, we should use this opportunity to ask if we, as a country, are truly putting our money where our mouth is regarding VA funding. Every day, VA doctors, nurses, technicians and other staff across our country work to try to deliver the best possible health care to our veterans. They face one critical and continuing obstacle--a VA medical system that is chronically, and needlessly, underfunded. I hope that the Congress will learn from this experience and pass mandatory funding legislation for the VA health care system. It's long past time for Congress to cease its band-aid approach to funding for veteran's health care, and I urge my colleagues to honor the request of the leaders of our Nation's veterans organizations to deal once and for all with this shameful and avoidable situation. Another positive provision in this bill is the modest increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Although the final funding levels fall slightly short of the amount approved by the House in May, the additional money will allow the NEA and NEH to build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America. It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly intellectual sustenance. They power economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie our diverse society and country together. I thank the conferees for recognizing the importance of this investment and giving the NEA and NEH the funds they need to advance our Nation's artistic and cultural life. Even though I strongly oppose cuts to certain programs in this appropriations bill, I will vote in favor of this legislation. I hope in the future we can provide sufficient funding to these programs that enhance our communities, provide the Nation with clean water, and protect our precious natural wonders.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 22, The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. In 1775, Members of the Second Continental Congress established the Post Office Department, the predecessor of the Postal Service and the second oldest federal department or agency in the United States. For the past two centuries, the United States Postal Service has evolved and changed as the United States has grown. Today the Postal Service delivers hundreds of minions of messages each day to more than 141 million homes and businesses. Still, the Postal Service is experiencing economic loss because of the decrease in first class mail volume due to the high usage of e-mail and faxes and the increase in operating costs as the number of addresses to which the Postal Service must deliver are growing everyday. For the past couple of decades, Members of the House Government Reform Committee have worked together to create legislation to reform the Postal Service. The bill that we have before us today is a compilation of hard work and bipartisan effort that includes a variety of interests such as large financial mailers, mail-dependent small businesses, magazine publishers, postal competitors, unions and consumer organizations. H.R. 22 provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the financial operations, rate structure, and civil service policies that currently govern the United States Postal Service. It is important to note that this bill today is not only a work of bipartisan congressional action, but it is the product of labor unions and management, postal employees and businesses, working together to make compromises to make postal reform a reality. Protecting collective bargaining rights, ensuring six-day a week postal delivery and demanding that postal workers receive the best federal employee healthcare are all important provisions that were included in this bill to benefit postal workers. H.R. 22 is a tribute to the countless letter carriers and postal employees who have been committed for many years to reforming the USPS. I have spent hours walking mail routes with the letter carriers in my home state of New Jersey. I have seen first hand how dedicated postal employees are to ensuring the timely and safe delivery of mail to their local communities. These letter carriers should be applauded for their service to all Americans. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act and am pleased that my colleagues have finally brought this to the House floor. The United States Postal Service is the knit between communities across America and I ask my colleagues to pass this meaningful postal reform legislation for all Americans.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 384. This legislation condemns the vicious terrorist attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on July 23, 2005. Those tragic blasts left 88 innocent civilians dead and 119 other injured and were the result of a coordinated plan to build fear in the hearts of the Egyptian people and rob them of their liberty. These acts and many others have been perpetrated by individuals who claim they are acting in the name of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It is an insult to Muslim Americans and Muslims worldwide to suggest that their chosen religion has anything to do with these terrorist attacks. Let me be clear, those who kill innocents and even themselves in the name of Islam are perverting their religion. When I talk to Muslim leaders in my district they tell me that the only good thing to come out of these attacks is the raised awareness of their religion and their resulting ability to educate many for the first time on the true tenants of their faith. I am proud of the many Muslims in New Jersey for the work they do everyday to promote peace and religious tolerance. I look forward to a day when all Americans will know the true values of Islam, and understand the hateful and perverted ``faith'' of those who would commit these deadly attacks. Terrorism sadly has become a tragic trend in our day and age. The targeting of innocent civilians in brutal attacks throughout the world, in London, New York, Washington, Madrid, the Middle East, and the latest attacks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt all make us a little less secure as human beings. These attacks cannot be allowed to continue. They rob us all of our life and liberty. We cannot let terrorism become a commonplace aspect of our lives. Consequently, I support this resolution to affirm the solidarity of all Americans with the Egyptian people, and condemn these terrorists attacks.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose approval of the US- Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). On the floor today we are considering a far reaching and important trade agreement with our Central American neighbors, and yet we will only spend two hours debating DR-CAFTA. I am disappointed that more time was not provided to debate this highly controversial legislation. We will have spent more time this week naming various post offices than seriously debating this trade agreement. This is simply wrong. When the House considered the North American Free Trade (NAFTA), a full eight hours of debate was allowed. This is how the House should consider such agreements, with meaningful and extended debate. International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availably is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values. Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them. Unfortunately, the DR- CAFTA before us today fails these basic tests. The DR-CAFTA does not contain the values we would require in America and that we must help spread in Central America. Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in opposition to DR-CAFTA because of its effect on the poor and most vulnerable in Central America. Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights, human rights, and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-based corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles. I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreements, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan, on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable. I am deeply troubled by the DR-CAFTA before us today. The DR-CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have inadequate wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a ``race to the bottom''. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote no on DR-CAFTA tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, enacted on July 26, 1990. The ADA occupies a unique place in our political and social history, providing sweeping protections against discrimination for a group that had suffered legal inequities and indignities from time immemorial. The accommodations that ADA afforded to persons with disabilities, in employment, public and private services, transportation and telecommunications, demonstrated that all Americans are entitled to legal protection from discrimination. Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was essential to eliminating legal justifications for denying equal rights to African Americans and others, the Americans with Disabilities Act constituted a step forward by prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities; and just as passage of the Civil Rights Act was a necessary precursor to the elimination of racism in practice, we still have some distance to go in order to eliminate popular prejudice and stigmatization of persons with disabilities. In Congress, I have worked with the disability community to ensure that all Americans are afforded the full protection of the law. I have introduced legislation to require that staff working with developmentally disabled persons call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. Danielle's Law would extend the New Jersey law to the rest of the country. I have introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, legislation to amend the Help America Vote Act, to require a voter-verified paper audit trail and to ensure that any system of verification be fully accessible for all voters. In the Committee on Education and Workforce, I successfully amended H.R. 4278, the Improving Access to Assistive Technology For Individuals With Disabilities Act of 2004, in order to allow protection and advocacy agencies to carry over program income, funds generated by program activities, that is, for 2 additional years. This change will enable these programs to reinvest the earned funds into additional services and assistance in the acquisition, utilization and maintenance of assistive technology. I have opposed the Department of Education's efforts to gut the Rehabilitation Services Administration, a program that has literally changed people's lives, providing the tools for disabled persons to live and work independently and with dignity. I fought for a full 40 percent funding for Individuals With Disability Education Act, the IDEA, which the Federal Government neglects. We are underfunding it by at least a factor of two. The Americans with Disabilities Act has allowed great gains in the past 15 years, but there is much yet to be done. We must continue to ensure that jobs are open to persons with disabilities and that these valuable employees have the necessary accommodations. We must continue to make accessible transportation and housing options and grant access to community-based supports and services that promote independence and integration. We must also commit to continued education and job training for all Americans. Since the passage of the ADA, I have been concerned with the interpretation of the law by Federal courts with regard to protections offered and individuals protected. The Federal courts' narrow interpretation of ADA has prevented it from achieving all that it was designed to do. As the Senate considers the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, I hope the Senate will fully inquire as to his views on the application of the ADA. Again, I would like to recognize the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I value the advances that our country has achieved because of legal protections it extends, and I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of Americans with disabilities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3283. The so-called United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act would provide little to no remedy for those in my district who are deeply concerned about the ever growing trade deficit with the Peoples Republic of China due to its longstanding illegal policy of currency manipulation. This is a major issue. Congress should be considering this measure for more than forty minutes and with the opportunity to offer amendments. However, this will not be the case today because of the procedures under which this bill was brought to the floor. We should be debating this issue in great depth, not the rather cursory discussion we are having today. We should be talking seriously about complex issues like ``Super 301,'' ``double counting,'' and what exactly we should do with our countervailing duties. We should be talking about why our trade deficit with China is now at $162 billion and continues to grow with no end in sight. We should be talking about the fact that China doubled its holding of U.S. debt between 2001 and 2004. And we should be talking about how jobs in our home states have been affected and what we can do to help American businesses who are struggling to export their goods to China. But that debate unfortunately will not happen today. Rather, today the House is considering H.R. 3283 because of an agreement reached, I presume to secure votes in favor of the seriously flawed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, (DR- CAFTA). The majority has chosen to play politics on the floor today rather than seriously address the issues resulting from China's currency manipulation and the resulting trade imbalance that has ballooned between the United States and China. I have heard from a number of constituents in my district who are deeply concerned about these issues. And yet today, we are not addressing their concerns with action, we are requesting studies. Today we are not ordering countervailing duties to correct for unfair trade practices, we are creating additional loopholes for China to evade the even paltry countervailing duties that do exist. Madam Speaker, today I stand with the people in my district who are affected by China's currency manipulation and our soaring trade deficit. That is why I have cosponsored a number of other bills, such as the bipartisan The Chinese Currency Act, H.R. 1498, that will actually address China's currency manipulation. However, I will vote against H.R. 3283, and it is my hope that the Congress will re-evaluate this serious issue in a detailed fashion to actually address these important issues that have bipartisan support.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today Member after Member has been talking about the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance. At the origin of our problem, we are the only major country where your health care coverage depends on who you work for. But that is not to be debated today. We are talking about the small businesses in New Jersey and elsewhere around the country that face the high cost of health insurance. We all hear about it from our small businesses and their employees. Unfortunately, what has been brought to the floor here is a bill that creates more problems than it solves. The concept of companies working together to control costs has worked in some States, and it is certainly something I support. However, I cannot support allowing association health plans to achieve cost savings by offering inferior coverage. Allowing AHPs to circumvent existing State laws, for example, with regard to mental health coverage or contraceptive equity or mammograms or prostate screening or countless other necessary benefits is not an acceptable means to cut premiums. Supporters of this legislation claim that millions of small businesses and their employees will be eligible for this new insurance option. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 600,000 of those eligible are currently uninsured, a small fraction of this huge population. And H.R. 525 would allow AHPs to offer artificially lower costs by offering cheaper premiums to lower-risk populations, a policy that will lead to older and sicker people paying higher premiums. The CBO found that more than 20 million workers and their dependents would see their premiums increase due to AHPs cherry-picking. States require that qualified health plans cover certain basic items. States say that anything that is worthy of the name health plan must cover certain things. Well, under this bill I could create a health plan that covers nothing but ingrown toenail surgery. It would be the cheapest plan out there, but it would not help employees very much. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 525 and to support the Andrews-Kind substitute. Their legislation would address the real needs of small employers. It would establish a small employer health benefits plan that would grant small business employees the same benefits as Federal employees receive. It provides prorated premium assistance for companies of varying sizes and employees of varying income. It would be much preferable to H.R. 525.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was detained at a hearing and I missed rollcall vote No. 415. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the PATRIOT Act. Even if all of the amendments before us today are passed, it will not bring this bill into the shape that it should be. We worked on this in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am sorry to say that most of our reasonable amendments were voted down on a party-line basis. But to make matters worse, even those improvements made in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did not find their way through the Committee on Rules to the floor. So I remain deeply concerned about what this bill does to the American people. The police and prosecution powers of government are among the most important powers for preserving life and liberty, but they are also among the most fearsome. Section 213, the so-called sneak-and-peek searches, it would allow investigators to come into your home, my home, take pictures, seize personal items, and when they discover they have made a mistake, there is no time in which they have to notify you that they have been there. One does not have to be a paranoid to be concerned that somebody has been in your house. Members might say it only applies to terrorists; it does not apply to law-abiding citizens like you and me. Well, tell that to Brandon Mayfield, tell that to the Portland attorney who was detained by investigators under the PATRIOT Act. Now, the FBI in that case apologized, but this is something that hits home, and we have a responsibility to preserve the freedoms of people at home. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. As you know, the PATRIOT Act was passed in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act was an immediate reaction to the state of shock the country was in--being drafted, briefly debated, approved, and signed into law by October 26, 2001, just weeks after the attacks. At the time I, and many other Members of Congress, voted for the Act under the condition that a number of the provisions contained within it would sunset and thus would need to be reviewed and reauthorized. The police and prosecution powers of the government are important and necessary to preserving life and liberty, but they are also the most fearsome powers of government and, if abused, can rob us of life and liberty. For generations, thousands upon thousands of people have come to America's shores to be free of the oppressive hand of authorities in other countries, to be free of the fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night, to be free of the humiliation and costs and stigma of inappropriate investigations. As the only Member of Congress from New Jersey, a state which suffered great loss on September 11th, on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I looked forward to working within the committee during our mark up of the PATRIOT Act to address a number of valid concerns that have arisen over the last few years about the sun- setting provisions. However, most of the important amendments that were offered were defeated on party lines. And what we did accomplish--the improvements we made--did not make it through the Rules Committee for consideration on the floor. I remain deeply concerned about many of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act as reported to the House, but I would like to specifically discuss two of them. I am deeply troubled by Section 213, which will be permanently reauthorized by this legislation. The so called ``sneak and peek'' searches allow federal agents to literally go in to your home, my home, anyone's home and conduct a secret search. Investigators can take pictures and even seize personal items or records and unbelievably they do not need to tell you about it for an indefinite period of time. When they discover they made a mistake or they discover you are not engaged in terrorist actions, they are under no obligation to ever let you know promptly. Another provision of the PATRIOT Act, Section 215, allows investigators broad access to any record without probable cause of a crime. This means that investigators can review your deeply personal medical records and also library records without telling you about it and without any probable reason to do it. Investigators under Section 215 would be able to access all the medical records at a local hospital with only the indication that there may be potentially valuable records contained therein. In other words, most of the records searched are of innocent people, but because there is a terrorist investigation underway or a terrorists records might be somewhere in the batch, they get swept up in the search. These provisions and many others have a deep impact on the freedoms and civil liberties all Americans. Some will say we need these provisions to track down terrorist and build cases against them. But what goes unsaid is that these provisions will also be used against people who have committed no crime and who are completely innocent. It is because of this that the PATRIOT Act must be understood as affecting all of us. A small number of unnecessary intrusions can have a broadly chilling effect. Proponents of the Patriot bill before us will say that it is directed at terrorists, not law abiding citizens, but they should try to tell that to Mr. Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon. Brandon Mayfield, a Portland attorney, was detained by investigators last year as a material witness under authority granted by the PATRIOT Act. They alleged that his finger prints were found on a bag linked to the terrorist bombings in Madrid, Spain last year. More so called evidence was collected when his residence was searched, without his knowledge, under Section 213 of the Act. However, the investigators were wrong. The FBI has issued an apology for his wrongful detention. But this is no conciliation for a lawyer and Muslim American whose reputation was tarnished by this investigation, made possible by the overly-broad powers granted under the PATRIOT Act. How can we allow this to happen in America? Of course, some mistakes will occur, but this bill strikes the wrong balance and makes those errors more likely. In 2001, I voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act with reservations, and my reservations have only increased over time. At the time, I said that in the anxious aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we were likely to get wrong the balance between freedom and security. I insisted on a sunset clause so that the law would expire after several years and Congress would adjust the balance. Because those sunsets were adopted we have an opportunity to revisit this important legislation today. Unfortunately, the Majority has prevented many amendments which have bipartisan support from being offered. These amendments would have helped restore the proper balance between freedom and security that the bill gets wrong. And they would have provided the important sunsets that would force review of the bill in four years. James Madison, speaking in 1788 before the Virginia Convention (not all that far from where we are today) explained what I believe is the unanswered problem with the PATRIOT Act. He said, ``I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.'' As Madison said over 200 years ago, the liberty and freedoms we as Americans cherish are being eroded today not at the barricade, but in the library, and at our local doctor's office. It is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome India's distinguished Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh. I was recently pleased to join 70 of my colleagues in encouraging Speaker Hastert to invite Prime Minister Singh to address a joint session of Congress during his visit to the United States. I am honored that Dr. Singh has chosen to accept Congress's invitation. During a visit to New Delhi in early 2001, I had the opportunity to meet with several government officials, including Dr. Singh, who then served as economic advisor to the Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi. Already distinguished as the author of India's most successful economic plan, Dr. Singh's wisdom and common sense were evident. I was pleasantly surprised when, in May 2004, Manmohan Singh was sworn in as India's fourteenth Prime Minister. Dr. Singh's position as leader of the world's largest democracy, his keen intellect, and his successful economic plan for India lend him the admiration of governments around the world. An accomplished economist, Dr. Singh began service in the Indian government in the 1970s. Ever since, his shrewd intellect and thoughtful consideration of complex matters have distinguished him among his colleagues. His elevation to the position of Prime Minister speaks volumes about his country's respect for intelligence and integrity in public leaders. India is beginning to realize its enormous potential, and I am continually impressed by its citizens. When I came to Congress in the beginning of 1999, the first Member organization that I joined was the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, which seeks to inform Members of Congress about issues of particular importance to the sub-continent. Since then, my interest in India and my respect for its people have only grown. As the world's largest democracy and second most populous country, India has faced and overcome challenges that few can fully appreciate. Through aggressive investment in its education system and infrastructure, India has experienced impressive growth as an economy and as a nation. After years of growth and advancement, India's position in the global community has never been stronger. I was pleased to join my colleagues yesterday in supporting House Resolution 364, which commends the continuing improvement in U.S.-India relations. The close relationship that our governments share advances the interests of our Nation and our people. Mr. Speaker, I welcome Dr. Manmohan Singh to this joint session of Congress. I look forward to hearing Dr. Singh speak, and I look forward to continuing to build the important and special relationship between our two countries.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2005, I was in my district participating in the first meeting of the New Jersey Flood Mitigation Task Force. This Task Force is working to help prevent the devastating flooding that occurred for a number of my constituents earlier this year. Due to the schedule, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 363 and 364. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 363 ``aye'' and rollcall No. 364 ``aye.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns with the Water Resource Development Act of 2005. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for authorizing projects that are important to my district in their bill. Water and infrastructure are important issues to the sprawling, populated area that I represent. Each of these projects is important to the residents of central New Jersey and will enhance the quality of life in my district. Although I am pleased that this legislation includes important civil works projects that will better our nation, I am disappointed that this legislation does not include stronger reforms of the Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with an important mission--operating our Nation's water resources and civil works projects. The projects they undertake provide our communities with clean drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, ecosystem restoration, and flood protection. Regrettably, the Army Corps has been plagued by mismanagement that has resulted in significant delays and distress to the communities that are in need of these projects. Although Congress specifically authorizes projects, the Army Corps has repeatedly ignored these guidelines and set their own priorities. For years, I have personally been frustrated with the Army Corps handling of projects in the 12th Congressional District. The most egregious example of the Army Corps disregard for authorized projects in my district is the environmental restoration of Grover's Mill Pond. Located at the site made famous by Orson Well's ``War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast, Grover's Mill is not only a historic site, but it is a recreation destination and the pond is a vital link to stream corridors. Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed have caused the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae. In fiscal year 2003, Congress specifically designated $500,000 in funding for this project, but only a fraction of this amount has been spent by the Corps on Grover's Mill pond. This pond in its current condition is not only an eyesore for the community and the residents who live near it, but gives off an unpleasant smell in the summer. Completion of this project is long overdue and is just one example of how the Army Corps fiscal irresponsibility impacts projects across the Nation. The Army Corps should be a leading environmental organization, but too often environmental protection seems to be a secondary consideration. One large deficiency is their dependence on a planning policy that was created by the Water Resources Council in 1983. More than 20 years later, these policies have seen little revision. In addition, I am concerned with provisions of this bill that would give the Army Corps new authority to limit dramatically the alternatives it will consider during project planning and the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, review process. This will undermine NEPA and allow the Army Corps to proceed with projects before evaluating a full range of reasonable alternatives. The proposed plan for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway is another disconcerting provision in the bill. H.R. 2648 would allow the Army Corps to spend $1.8 billion to improve the water route and ease travel time. The Army Corps claims that this large project is necessary due to its projections that traffic will increase. However, both the National Academy of Sciences and the Congressional Research Service dispute this finding. Investing nearly 10 percent of total Corps spending into a project based on faulty predictions is simply unacceptable. I will support the amendment being offered by Representative Blumenauer and Representative Flake that will ensure that this project is economically justified by authorizing it only if the Army Corps meets their lowest projected traffic scenario. Although I have strong concerns that this bill does not go far enough in reforming the Army Corps, I believe that the projects and programs in this bill are important and need to be reauthorized. Therefore, I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation. I hope in the future that Congress will be able to enact reformative measure to address the Army Corps fiscal, environmental, and logistical oversights.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Washington, for this Special Order and for shining a light on this subject. The gentleman is right, this is something, it is curious. I have been trying for a couple of years to draw sharp attention to this, to this exposure of the identity of someone whom we have asked to undertake risky, dangerous, important assignments for quite a long time. The press seemed very interested in this other issue of their ability to protect their sources, not an unimportant issue, but something apart from this critical issue of how we as a country collect intelligence, what we as a country ask of people who risk their lives to collect that intelligence, and what we do about protecting their ability to do it and protecting their lives and welfare. This is a very important matter. Former President Bush, the current President's father, said that those who expose our human sources are ``the most insidious of traitors.'' Ten former intelligence officers signed a letter calling the disclosure of this particular officer's identity ``a shameful and unprecedented event in American history.'' It is an uncommon occurrence, and for good reason. Thank goodness, it is uncommon. Intelligence is intended to save lives. Intelligence is intended to protect our national security. Intelligence is intended to be something that prevents us from going to war. But to collect that intelligence, people have to take great risks. Operating undercover, perhaps under an alias, dealing with people in out-of-the-way places is often a thankless job. We do not often acknowledge the people who do that. It is a terrible thing when their effectiveness is lost through some accident. It is even worse when they are exposed by the counterintelligence people in another country. But worst of all, of almost unthinkable tragedy, is when a person would be exposed by his or her own government. Mr. Speaker, it is not just a matter of ruining a career, it is not just a matter of an affront to a person or her spouse, it is not just the loss of probably millions of dollars that goes into developing an undercover agent, providing the cover and all that. No, it is more than the ruined career, more than the loss to our Nation of effective intelligence. It actually puts that person at risk. And anyone who ever had lunch with that person in a foreign country is now suspected by that country as having been fraternizing with a spy. We do not know what has happened to other people in other countries because of exposure of identities of intelligence officers. That an exposure should come from our own country is almost unthinkable. So when we raise this subject today, it is not about political ``gotcha''; it is not to embarrass someone. No. It is because we as a Congress have a responsibility to look after these people whom we have asked to take great risks. And we have to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen. That is why we want to know what happened and how it happened. It is, well, like someone sending an e-mail to the enemy with a position of our troops on the map. You do not do that at wartime. That is treasonous. Today, the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on which I sit submitted a letter to the President, again underscoring the importance of this matter, abhorring the disclosure of identities of undercover officers, and asking that the President take the step of removing the security clearance from anyone known to have any association with this. We certainly know that Karl Rove, as acknowledged through his attorney, that he disclosed the identity, maybe not by name, but he might as well have; the identity of an intelligence officer to a reporter of a national news magazine. Because the officer was undercover, her identity could be known only through access to classified information. There is ample precedent for suspending the security clearances of people under suspicion of leaking classified information. So we formally and soberly asked the President to suspend any and all of Mr. Rove's security clearances, at least and until the Fitzgerald investigation is complete. That is just one step. But we here in Congress have an important role beyond that, a role of oversight to make sure that we, as I say, look after the welfare, effectiveness, and safety of those whom we have asked to take risks for our country so that we can know what is going on around the world, so we can avoid war, so that we can save lives, so that we can advance democracy. I thank my colleague from Washington for this Special Order; and I hope, now that the country's attention is focused on this subject, that we really can get to the bottom of it. The President said at first that he would find and fire this person. Then a little bit later he said, you know, it is going to be really hard to find the person. This is the same President who said we will find Osama bin Laden, wherever he is in the world. But among the 5,000 people in the White House, I am going to have a hard time finding out who it was who leaked this. Well, we know at least one person in the White House now who was party to this. The President should take action so that this sort of thing will never happen again.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would say this goes beyond political punishment. We certainly could condemn his punishing the envoy who went to learn the truth about the uranium from Niger. But for whatever reason to disclose the identity of someone whom we have asked to take risks, life and death risks on our behalf is almost unthinkable. And to do it for what appear to be gratuitous political reasons makes it all the more shameful.

Mr. HOLT. I cannot imagine why this name would have been released, but for the sake of creating political embarrassment for someone. I call that a gratuitous breach of national security. There does not seem to be any higher purpose here. I suppose you might be able to imagine some circumstances where for some higher purpose you probably could dream up something where releasing the identity of, you know, someone we have put in such a dangerous position might be justifiable, but this certainly is not it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest terms possible an ugly and xenophobic comment that recently came to my attention. Yesterday, a staff member who works for another Member of Congress responded to an e-mail inquiry regarding the upcoming visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with what can only be described as an insulting and bigoted attempt at humor. His comments were deeply offensive to Indians, Indian Americans, and countless others like me who do not tolerate such bigotry. On one of my visits to India a few years ago I was able to meet with government officials, including Prime Minister Singh, then a member of the Rajya Sabha, India's Upper House of Parliament. I was deeply impressed by his intellect, thoughtfulness, and the success of his economic program, and I am proud to welcome him as he addresses a Joint Session of Congress this week. It is my hope that all Americans will listen to his words. We have much to learn from him regarding tolerance and acceptance of people of other cultures.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2005, I was in my district participating in the first meeting of the New Jersey Flood Mitigation Task Force. This Task Force is working to help prevent the devastating flooding that occurred for a number of my constituents earlier this year. Due to the schedule, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 363 and 364. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 363 ``aye'' and rollcall No. 364 ``aye.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 739. It is part of a package of bills that we have before us today that serve no purpose that I can see but to gut the occupational health legislation record before this Congress. Current law requires that employers challenge a citation or notice of a failure to abate a hazard within a 15-day time period. There is a reason that this is a short time period. It is because these are serious matters. The short deadline was enacted to encourage expeditious handling of cases and to ensure that the workplace hazards are corrected in a timely manner. The commission already has the ability to review specific cases of missed deadlines in a manner that protects the rights of employers. In fact, my colleagues defending this legislation said what about unintentional missed deadlines or deadlines that are missed innocently. The commission can deal with that. What we are concerned about are the ones that are missed disingenuously: oh, I forgot; oh, I did not quite get around to taking care of that. It is clear that H.R. 739 is designed to ease the burden on employers at the expense of the health and safety of workers. This is the dramatic change in policy. My colleague from Georgia said the dramatic change in policy is somehow OSHA has gained regulatory authority. No. OSHA has always had regulatory authority for the last 35 years. The real change is this dramatic change in policy that would delay the employers' responsiveness to the health hazards and increase the time that workers have to work in unsafe conditions. These measures would make it more difficult for employees to seek redress and would impede the enforcement of worksite safety and health provisions. Again, this is one of a set of bills that would serve to gut OSHA. It puts aside, really, the seriousness of the matter here. We do not want OSHA to become just an annoyance or a minor delay or an inconvenience or just the cost of doing business. No. OSHA should have teeth. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans, I do not know who they are, they do not know who they are, who today have their arms, their eyes, their health, even their lives because of OSHA; and they do not know who they are. But they can thank people like Senator Pete Williams from New Jersey and others, who 35 years ago realized that it is the appropriate role of the Federal Government to be involved. I know there are those who think that it would be better if the Federal Government had never gotten involved in this. I suppose they would say, well, the employee could sit down with the employer and the employee could point out the unsafe working conditions and the employer will surely take care of it because no employer wants his employees harmed. It just does not work that way. It did not work that way for the century before OSHA was passed. Let me repeat: there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have their eyesight, who have their arms, who have their health, who have their lives because OSHA has teeth, because OSHA requires prompt remedy to unsafe conditions.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Two River Theater Company on the opening of a new, state of the art, performance center in Red Bank, New Jersey. The Two River Theater Company is in Monmouth County, New Jersey's leading professional theater. Since the company first opened its curtains in 1994, the Two River Theater Company has used many venues for their productions. Starting at Monmouth College and traveling around Monmouth County, the Two River Theater Company has been innovative and resourceful in creating productions in borrowed spaces. With the opening of their new home, the Two River Theater Company will provide an excellent addition to the artistic and cultural makeup of Red Bank, Monmouth County and all of central New Jersey. As a supporter of the arts, I cannot stress enough the importance of culture in our lives. The arts play a crucial role in our society, enhancing our creativity; promoting critical aspects of education; and providing Americans with the opportunity to view works of beauty and expression. I commend the Two River Theater Company for bridging together local groups and communities through their educational and cultural programming and providing individuals with access to many different forms of art. The Two River Theater Company decision to locate their new theater on Red Bank's west side, easily accessible by car and train, is an example of the desire to contribute to the local community. The new space is comprised of a main theater, named for the cofounders of the Two River Theater Company, that will provide an intimate atmosphere for both the actors and audiences. A small box theater will provide a different type of venue for performances as well rehearsal space for productions on the main stage. The complex also holds costume and craft shops, lighting and sound shops and dressing rooms. For more than ten years, the individuals involved with the Two River Theater Company have shared their love for the theater, arts and music with local schools. From educational programming to reduced admission for school groups to running a yearlong program for 25 exceptional high school juniors to teach them about all aspects of theater, the Two River Theater Company is committed to educating our youth and helping students gain a greater appreciation for the arts. Kicking off their inaugural season, the Two River Theater Company held a gala fund-raiser and then hosted three free programs for the local communities including a Celebration for Educators on April 26, a Neighborhood Open House & Concert on April 28, and a Family Day on April 30. The theater season kicked off on May 7th with the Pulitzer Prize-winning comedy ``You Can't Take It With You'' by George S. Kaufman, which will run in the Robert ``Bob'' and Joan Rechnitz Theater and ``Suicide in B flat'' by Sam Shepard, a one act play that includes music, that will be performed in the Marion Huber Theater for a limited number of days in June. I congratulate the Two River Theater Company for their hard work and dedication to achieving their dream of their own theater. Not only will the new venue provide an excellent place for audiences to enjoy the arts, but it has and will continue to bring cultural and new life to downtown and west side Red Bank. I applaud the achievements of the Two River Theater Company and may they break a leg during their inaugural theater season.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this supplemental, but not of the process that brought it to the floor. Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration acknowledged that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year, despite repeated efforts by House Democrats to fund VA healthcare. In response, the Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to give the VA an extra $1.5 billion this year to cover the health care shortfall. But House Republicans today offered just $975 million, meaning additional work will have to be done to correct this serious problem. But the problem we face is larger than dollars and cents. There is an emerging credibility gap, one that Secretary of Veterans Affairs Nicholson would do well to address and quickly. It simply strains credulity to suggest, as some in the House have this week, that neither the Secretary nor his staff could have foreseen this problem. Mr. Nicholson's predecessor, former VA Secretary Anthony Principi, who is currently chairing the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, certainly had no difficulty giving the Congress honest assessments on the VA's needs. Indeed, Secretary Principi was too forthright for White House officials, who were undoubtedly both embarrassed and angered by his candor during the last Congress. You remember the story, I'm sure. At the annual VA budget hearing on February 4, 2004, in response to a question by my friend and colleague from Illinois, Mr. Evans, then- Secretary Principi acknowledged that he needed at least $1.2 billion more to meet the medical needs of America's veterans than President Bush had requested in his Fiscal Year 2005 budget submission to Congress. My friend from Illinois showed his usual courage and tenacity, and fought to get Secretary Principi the money they both knew--the money we all knew--was needed to properly care for our veterans. And even if this supplemental funding is provided, there will still be at least a $600 million shortfall in VA funding this fiscal year. What does this shortfall mean in human terms? It means not enough psychiatric nurses to care for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric disorders. It means some veterans will not get prosthetic devices they need to function in the real world. It means that hospital administrators will have to raid medical care accounts in order to pay for equipment repairs to keep air conditioners functioning and electrical systems working. It means longer clinic waiting times for veterans seeking appointments. All of these shortages are both unacceptable and avoidable. If we can find the money to buy the hardware to send our men and women into battle, there's no excuse for us not to find the money to pay for their wounds of war after they come home. Shortchanging America's veterans on America's birthday is truly a manifestation of Tom Paine's sunshine patriotism. I urge my colleagues to not only support this supplemental, but to demand that the President and the House leadership provide the full funds the VA needs to care for our wounded warriors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding for the Community Development Block Grant program. The proposed cuts to this vital program for individual community improvement growth must be withdrawn and full funding restored. H.R. 3058 seeks to cut $251 million from the Community Development Block Grant program, a 6 percent slash in funding and another reduction in a long string of cutbacks for the program. I stand strongly opposed to any effort to reduce funding to the CDBG program. The nature of CDBG--funds for housing, economic development, public facilities, social services, and land acquisition, to name a few--incorporates a significant amount of flexibility to appropriate funds at the discretion of each community. What this means for each community is their ability to use Federal funds for a wide range of initiatives as well as to prioritize local needs while supporting national objectives. This great characteristic, leaving specific appropriations for local decision making, does not warrant reductions in the program, which would prevent Federal funds from being used where they are needed most. In FY 2004, the Community Development Block Grant program provided $4.853 billion to communities across the Nation. In my home State of New Jersey, CDBG funds many important initiatives. In Trenton alone it supports childcare services, provides for job training programs, funds the food programs at local area soup kitchens, and is used towards building and repairing affordable housing in the city. Elsewhere, in Monroe Township the CDBG funds ``A Friend in Need,'' a program which provides homecare to the elderly unable to afford it. It also aids the South Brunswick Citizens for Independent Living (CIL), which builds affordable housing for the disabled and provides training programs on financial independence. These are only a few local examples of this vital Federal program. The 31-year history of this program has proven to us that investment in communities continues to benefit lower income persons in need of assistance. Most of the CDBG-funded programs have proved to be small in scale, neighborhood-based initiatives. Expenditures through the CDBG program for lower income individuals have repeatedly exceeded the minimums set by Congress. The 6 percent reduction for the Community Development Block Grant program included in H.R. 3058 is much more damaging than it seems: due to the small nature of many of the programs CDBG funds, it would result in the complete cutting of numerous and invaluable local community projects. I firmly believe that the absence of these programs would neglect many pressing needs of the American people, negatively impact many communities, and, most importantly, prevent Federal funds from reaching those who need them most. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to restore full funding for the Community Development Block Grant program as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette/Oberstar amendment that would restore funding for Amtrak. The Fiscal Year 2006 Transportation Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill that we are debating today cuts funding for Amtrak to $550 million, half of its current funding level. Without increasing the funding level to $1.2 billion, Amtrak will be unable to survive and will be forced into bankruptcy. In recent years the Administration and some members of Congress have repeatedly proposed significant cuts in Federal funding for Amtrak. They seem determined to eliminate this vital transportation service, and justify these actions by demonizing and blaming Amtrak for all of its problems. These opponents of Amtrak often forget that the Federal government subsidizes our nation's airports, roads, sidewalks, and even its bicycle paths. Why should it treat our national rail system differently? Like the 25 million people that rode Amtrak in 2005, I appreciate the essential public service Amtrak provides. I am a frequent rail passenger, as are many of my constituents in central New Jersey. In fact, 4 million New Jersey residents rode Amtrak last year, and many New Jersey commuters ride Amtrak or use their infrastructure daily. The loss of Amtrak would impact more than my constituents and other patrons across the nation who depend on its convenient service. Those customers that rely on Amtrak will be forced to descend on our already heavily congested roads and airports. These demands on our roadways will accelerate the loss of open spaces that will be paved over in order to construct new roads. The additional congestion will increase pollution in urban environments that already suffer from the ill effects of smog. Furthermore, the economic impact of eliminating Amtrak should not be overlooked. In New Jersey alone, at least $200 million in annual revenues would be lost from the newsstands, convenience stories, cafes, and other retail businesses that are located near the rail lines and that count upon daily commuters for much of their cashflow. This economic dependence on Amtrak is similar along the Northeast Corridor, in cities across the Nation and in rural areas that depend on the train passing through their town. I am disappointed that the Administration and some members here in Congress fail to recognize the benefits of Amtrak. I hope that the majority of my colleagues will appreciate the importance of Amtrak on America's transportation infrastructure and support the LaTourette/ Oberstar amendment that will keep Amtrak running.