Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, that will be safer for the public and the workers of the airline industry, and I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there are 400 miles of snowmobile trails immediately adjacent to Yellowstone, thousands of miles of snowmobile trails, some of which I have traveled outside the park in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and 130,000 of snowmobile trails across the country. We are talking about phasing out snowmobile use on 250 miles. This is not going to hurt the industry. It is not going to hurt the tourism industry and it is not going to hurt the snowmobile manufacturing industry. It is true if you are snowmobiling on these trails outside of Yellowstone Park, you will not see Old Faithful, but we are hopeful if we remove the snowmobile smog, others will be able to see Old Faithful when they travel in by snowcoach. Let me point out that many former National Park officials who worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations have expressed their displeasure. Last month they wrote to Secretary Norton saying to uphold the founding principle of our national parks, stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future generations, the snowmobile should be phased out. This was signed by the Park Service Director who served from 1964-1972; the Assistant Secretary of the Interior who served between 1971 and 1976; the National Park Service Director who served between 1980 and 1985; the National Park Service Deputy Director who served between 1985 and 1989; the Park Service Director who served between 1993 and 1997; the Park Service Director who served between 1997 and 2001; the Yellowstone Park Superintendent who served between 1983 and 1994; and the Yellowstone Park Superintendent who served between 1994 and 2001. They all say proceed with the rule that phases out snowmobile use on these 250 miles of roads in Yellowstone Park. That is what we are asking for today. I ask support for my amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know if snowmobile use was permitted in Yosemite National Park.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, so it is not a permitted use in Yosemite National Park?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) in response to an earlier amendment today said, ``We want Yellowstone park to be as natural as possible.'' We are not here to disparage the snowmobile industry. We are simply trying to make the point that Yellowstone National Park is a unique environment, it is particularly fragile in the winter, it is a precious national treasure that deserves an extra level of protection. Now, my colleagues want to substitute their own judgment for the ones who have taken the measurements, the ones who have the data. We could talk about two-stroke engines and four-stroke engines, and I would be happy to refute all the arguments that have come up. But the point is, the studies have been done; they have been done repeatedly. The Environmental Protection Agency said that the original National Park Service study was more thorough than anything they had seen on a similar subject; and the conclusion was, even considering the new technology, even considering the four-stroke engines, that the way to protect Yellowstone Park was to phase out snowmobiles, two-stroke engines, four-stroke engines, all of them. Maybe my colleagues think that these machines, nearly 100,000 of them that go into the park, will not hurt anything. Maybe they want to believe that the experts are wrong and it will not hurt the air and the water and animals, it will not stress these animals during the tough times in the winter. But that is not what the studies show. So we are simply asking that these 250 miles, this precious park, be set aside. The constituents of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) can snowmobile all over Minnesota. The constituents of the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) can snowmobile all over Wyoming. We are talking about America's premier park.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. The word ``compromise'' is something of a euphemism here because there was a rule in place that, several years ago with the new administration, was rescinded, so there was not anybody compromising with anybody. They rolled back an existing well-considered rule and substituted another one.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson) to offer an amendment to protect the world's first national park and a wonderful American treasure, Yellowstone. Our amendment completes the phaseout originally implemented by the National Park Service in 2001 of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The phaseout was delayed and then reversed over the course of the past 3 years, only to be reinstated for most of last winter under court order. The original decision to phase out snowmobiles in favor of snowcoaches was not an arbitrary decision or some kind of gratuitous attack on snowmobiles. It was based on 10 years of careful study, after which the National Park Service implemented a rule in January 2001 calling for a 2-year phaseout. After President Bush entered the White House, the National Park Service delayed implementation of the phaseout and initiated yet another study of winter use in Yellowstone at a cost of $2.4 million to taxpayers. This study, no surprise, completed in February 2003, came to the same conclusion, that phasing out snowmobiles in favor of snowcoaches would be the best thing for Yellowstone Park, for the park, for the visitors, for the employees, for the wildlife. This is about protecting our natural treasures. It is not primarily about snowmobiles. It is that snowmobiles have been determined to be incompatible with the preservation of Yellowstone Park. In the early days of Yellowstone Park, employees and visitors engaged in all sorts of behavior which was not thought to be harmful at that time, but it jeopardized the ability of future generations to see the natural splendor. Park employees used to throw trash down the geysers or use them for laundry, permanently plugging up the geothermal features. The National Park Service used to encourage visitors to feed the bears, wolves were openly hunted across Yellowstone until they were extinct. Visitors were allowed to chip off chunks of rock from geysers. But it was recognized that this behavior was not compatible with the purpose of the park, the creation of Park Service to preserve these parks for the enjoyment of current and future generations. As the Park Service learned more about the unique environment of Yellowstone, they ended these destructive practices. Snowmobiling in the park is no different. The Park Service has studied the issue repeatedly and comprehensively and found that continued use of snowmobiles is incompatible with the mission as laid out in the legislation creating the parks, to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects, the wildlife in the parks, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same and such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. We are not here to disparage the snowmobile industry or those who ride snowmobiles, I among them. We are trying to make the point that Yellowstone National Park is a unique environment, a precious national treasure that deserves an extra level of protection. In fact, the unique characteristics of Yellowstone's winter environment actually magnify the harmful effects of snowmobiles, making their impact really worse than in other areas of the country. Sound travels further in winter. Snowmobile noise is audible across many popular sections of the park, as I discovered when I was there in February last year. Even the newer snowmobiles which were supposed to meet strict new noise and emission standards were found to actually emit more because the snowmobile industry has souped them up. They are higher horsepower. So, in fact, even though the four-stroke engine offers some advantages over a two-stroke engine, what is being purchased, sold and used is a more powerful snowmobile that is emitting more. The simple fact is that snowmobiles that enter Yellowstone and Grand Teton are only a tiny portion of the $7 billion snowmobile industry. As the industry reacts and produces more powerful snowmobiles, it is difficult to make them quieter and cleaner. And in fact, EPA tests found that the 2004 four-stroke models was actually emitting more than the 2002 models. We have no intention of cutting off motorized access to the parks. The original snowmobile phaseout encouraged the purchase and deployment of snowcoaches.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax bill which is full of giveaways to special interests. I wanted to support this bill. I support an across-the-board corporate rate reduction for income from U.S. manufacturing activities so that more manufacturing jobs can be created here in the United States. I am also a strong supporter of the R&D tax credit because it is an investment in the future and will keep our economy strong over the longterm. However, this bill is full of items that have nothing to do with job creation or long-term investment in research. This bill is a tax break for special interests. Do we really need a special tax loophole for manufactures of fishing tackle boxes? Or a tax break to benefit makers of sonar devices used for fishing. As an outdoorsman, I support fishing but we don't need a tax break to do it. Many of my constituents enjoy target shooting with bow and arrows but do the makers of bow and arrows really need the tax break that this bill provides? Further, the bill continues the Republicans' attack on the environment. In this bill is a tax break for whaling and a tax break to benefit landowners who sell timber from their property. Also in this bill is a provision that isn't even tax policy, that is the tobacco ``buyout''. I can understand helping small tobacco farmers, however this bill only helps big tobacco corporations. The provisions of this bill will line their pockets with billions of dollars. If the current quota system is eliminated, as proposed in the FSC bill, the price of tobacco will collapse. The minimum drop that can be expected in 50 cents per pound of tobacco--roughly the current amount that goes for rent to quota owners. As the U.S. price drops, foreign producers will lower their prices too. Falling prices will drive small tobacco farmers off of their land, while enriching Big Tobacco. U.S. tobacco manufacturers intend to purchase 450 million pounds of domestic tobacco this year. At a discount of 50 cents per pound, the immediate savings is $225 million. But this is just a minimum estimate. According to a USDA economist, factoring in prices changes for both domestic and foreign tobacco, the end of the quota is worth $15 billion to the tobacco industry over 14 years. Cigarette manufacturers can take this entire windfall as profit or use part of it to lower prices, addicting more children and killing more Americans. It is no surprise that leading public health groups consider this proposal an unmitigated disaster. The list of special interest tax breaks goes on. If that is not bad enough the bill once again hurts the future generations of Americans by adding at least $34 billion in debt that will have to be paid back by our children. The legislation in the other body was at least revenue neutral. More tax cuts of this sort will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits create large debt and will create high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital. The President is pretending that we can have war without sacrifice. Eventually, someone has to pay. I believe Chairman Greenspan's recent comments are appropriate: ``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free lunch has still to be invented.'' Mr. Speaker, today we should be passing a revenue neutral bill that helps manufacturing here in the United States, discourages sending jobs overseas and invests in research and development for our future.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my disappointment that the American Jobs Creation Act (H.R. 4520) includes a provision that grants the tobacco industry a $10 billion buyout but does not grant the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. The consequences of tobacco use are disturbing. Smoking-related illnesses claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $92.2 billion annually in health- care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Spit tobacco and other smokeless tobacco are not safe alternatives. They can lead to tooth decay and loss, gum disease and oral cancer. Dispite the enormous risks to tobacco--which is the most deadly of all consumer products--the Federal agency that is most responsible for protecting the public health is powerless to effectively regulate this product. In 2000, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate tobacco products and that it is the responsibility of Congress to provide the USDA with this authority. Congress cannot wait any longer to act on this matter. Many of my colleagues have fought hard to reach a compromise that will give the proper authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products without needlessly impeding on the tobacco industry's right to produce and sell its product. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today squanders an opportunity to couple a tobacco buyout measure with improving public health. Even more disheartening than this missed opportunity is the sad reality that a bargaining tool has been removed from the table and our ability to pass legislation providing the FDA with the regulatory authority it needs has been jeopardized. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to pass legislation that will allow the FDA to carry out its mission to ensure the safety of products consumed by the public.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bipartisan amendment that will provide much-needed funds to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. This is a long overdue and a modest funding increase 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. Since 1965, the NEA has provided over 111,000 grants for projects ranging from theater and film festivals, to poetry readings and workshops, to radio and TV broadcasts, to museum exhibitions, to city design and downtown renewal. NEA funds often help bring excellent performances and exhibitions to small towns and rural areas throughout the United States. The NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural life. The additional funding contained in this amendment would enable NEH to improve the quality of humanities education to America's school children and college students, offer lifelong learning opportunities through a range of public programs, and support new projects that encourage Americans to discover their wonderful American heritage. 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 sustenance. They power economic development in many regions. They tie our diverse society and country together. Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country more worth defending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle may not be writing much environmentally friendly legislation, but they certainly are good at recycling. What we have before us today is a bill identical to H.R. 6, a grab bag of special interest goodies, certainly not a real energy policy. And rather than coming up with a rational energy policy to meet our Nation's needs for the foreseeable future, the authors of this legislation are simply coming out with a bag of goodies. It is a simple mathematical problem. America possesses less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and makes up 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption. Members can do the math. This bill does not provide what we need in this country which is a rational energy policy. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and the entire ``energy week'' charade the House leadership has brought to us. Once again, rather than spending the time we have here on the House floor to honestly debate critical issues and solve problems, the House leadership has decided to simply bring back the same tired, unimaginative legislation. Our friends on the other side of the aisle may not write environmentally friendly legislation, but at least they are good at recycling. Unfortunately, as this body is busy reshuffling papers and giving new titles to old bills, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is growing worse. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, the bill before us merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution. It's a simple mathematical problem--America possesses less than 3% of the world's oil reserves but makes up 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption. We can ravage our environment all we want and drill all over the country, but the simple truth is that we cannot use domestic sources of oil to satisfy our dangerous addiction. The longer we continue to have such an unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels, the more we will have to rely on supplies from unstable countries like Nigeria and Venezuela--and of course, from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has the largest remaining proven oil reserves--and recent attacks on America show the price we pay for drinking so deeply from there. It is time that we create a real energy policy that reduces our overall dependence on oil so we can look forward to a sustainable energy future that underpins a healthy economy. Sadly, H.R. 4053 is identical to H.R. 6--a grab bag of special interest goodies, not a real energy policy. Rather than coming up with a rational energy plan to meet our Nation's needs for the foreseeable future, the authors of this legislation simply asked every energy industry what they want and turned it into legislative language. This bill is notable for a few glaring omissions. First, it contains no renewable portfolio standard, a provision that would actually move our country toward a sustainable energy future by increasing our reliance on renewable energy. It contains pitiful levels of incentives for creating new renewable energy sources. It also fails to close the SUV loophole, a shameful part of our tax code that gives the wealthy tremendous incentives to continue buying the largest and most inefficient vehicles on the road. What's worse, the bill does virtually nothing to save oil. At a time when it is clear that our dependence on foreign oil affects national security and it is apparent that we will never drill our way to independence domestically, we have an energy bill that refuses to mandate greater efficiency. Not only are there no provisions to increase automobile efficiency, this bill could actually undermine current fuel economy standards. In fact, the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration says that passage of this legislation will not reduce energy consumption and will actually lead to a three cent per gallon increase in average gasoline prices by the year 2015. So not only is this legislation doing nothing to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, it will actually increase gas prices. I also want to express my displeasure at the cynical attempt by the House leadership to link drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee with the reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Drilling in ANWR makes no sense not only because it ravages a spectacular and sensitive environment, but also because it sets a senseless precedent of drilling for a tiny amount of oil rather than dealing with our problem of runaway oil consumption. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this conference agreement today because it is the wrong policy for America's future. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution. We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our nation's energy needs. As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one the Nation's premiere alternative energy research labs, I have worked in Congress to help craft a strategy that will provide real energy security for central New Jersey residents and the United States. That's why Congress should focus on the development of renewable energy sources, including fuel cells, solar power, and fusion. We can fulfill the energy needs of a growing economy without compromising our national security interests or devastating our environment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4278, the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act. The bill reauthorizes the Assistive Technology State Grant Program, and the State Protection and Advocacy program. It also will help to ensure a larger share of the resources distributed under the program goes directly to individuals with disabilities. Assistive technology devices include a broad range of aids, such as wheelchairs, communication devices and computer hardware that help individuals compensate for living with a disability. The Assistive Technology State Grant program was first enacted in 1988 as a program to provide states funds to establish an infrastructure for increasing access and distribution to assistive technology devices. Millions of Americans depend on assistive technology devices to remove barriers to education, employment, and even daily communication. The bill also funds the State Protection and Advocacy programs. Its purpose is to assist individuals in overcoming barriers in the workplace and in the government and making assistive technology more accessible to individuals with disabilities throughout the state. I would like to thank Representatives Buck McKeon, John Boehner, Dale Kildee and their staffs for working with me to make changes to the bill regarding State Protection and Advocacy programs during the committee markup process. The bill now includes changes that would allow Protection and Advocacy systems to carry over ``program income'' for 2 additional years. These are funds generated by program activities, typically attorneys' fees reimbursements, for 2 additional years. Under current law, Protection and Advocacy programs can carry over ``program income'' for one additional fiscal year past the year in which the program income was received. This can be very difficult, particularly for small states where the award could be sizes that they are not prepared to properly spend and can not budget for. I hope this change will enable Protection and Advocacy programs that receive ``program income'' to invest the funds back into the program. This will allow states to put the additional funding to the best use possible for people with disabilities without being constrained by time. Speaker, I ask my colleague to support this bipartisan bill that will provide comprehensive technology-related assistance for adults and children with disabilities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in recognizing the lessons of the life of Ronald Reagan and his legacy. Among those lessons would be a sense of civility in debate. Among those lessons would be disagreeing without being disagreeable. Among those lessons would be the ability to recognize the humanity of our opponents, and they are lessons that we should all take to heart. Another part of the legacy, and I think the lasting legacy of President Reagan, will derive from the painful period as we watched Alzheimer's take this vibrant and warm and really great person into, as Mrs. Reagan said, a different place, a different world. And I hope we will use this to rededicate ourselves to research in Alzheimer's and stem cell research so that others will not follow the former President in this path that was really painful for all of us to watch.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. What we should be doing today is voting to extend unemployment benefits. However, the Republican leadership will not let that amendment be offered, even though or maybe because they know it would pass. Not only will the majority not assist workers who need jobs, but the authors of this bill assert that unemployed workers need financial incentive to get a job. Now, ask the workers whose jobs have been outsourced whether they need financial incentive to get a job. I am really shocked that the authors of this bill believe the American workers effectively need to be bribed to get a job. American workers are not looking for handouts. They are looking for jobs. And, even worse, this bill would effectively bar the recipients of this money from receiving actual job training. Contrary to, and I must respectfully differ from the chairman, contrary to what he says, they would not get actual job services. Sure, at a job center, if they find an open computer, they might be able to use it to prepare a resume, but they will not get the counseling they need. They will not get the training they need. This bill would deny workers the important training opportunities they need. This Nation has lost more than 2 million jobs under this administration. We should be dealing with the unemployment needs of these workers. I ask my colleagues to oppose this risky scheme.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this amendment. The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representatives to guarantee the preferences and will of the people was represented. They included provisions in the Constitution, such as a 2-year term of office and requiring that vacancies be filled in all events by a special election, to ensure that the Members serving in this Chamber would be held directly accountable to the people. Although the 17th amendment expanded this ideal of representation by requiring Senators to be directly elected by citizens of their State, it still permitted the use of appointments to fill vacancies. Therefore, the unique nature of the House of Representatives remained intact and to this day no Member has ever entered this body except by the mandate and popular vote of his or her constituents. The stark realities of the 21st century, where terrorists seek to destroy our Nation and the incapacitation of a large portion of this Chamber is no longer inconceivable, require us to reexamine the continuity of our government. However, I believe that even in a terrorist attack or other catastrophe enough Members would survive to conduct the business of the Congress. The small probability that no Members would survive to serve does not warrant amending the Constitution to circumvent the electoral process. Suffrage is fundamental to the success of our democracy, and it must be protected even in times of crisis and uncertainty. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last week, I joined several distinguished experts in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to commend them for the public release of their very timely, and much-needed study on the oversold and misguided National Missile Defense. It is entitled ``Technical Realities: An Analysis of the 2004 Deployment of a U.S. Missile Defense System''. Sadly, Congress keeps shoveling ever greater amounts of taxpayer funds into this wasteful, dead-end program that adds nothing to our real national defense. In FY 2003, President Bush requested $7.8 billion, Congress authorized $7.78 billion and appropriated $7.62 billion. In FY 2004, the President requested $9.1 billion, Congress authorized $9.08 billion and appropriated $8.9 billion. Now, in FY 2005, the President has requested $10.2 billion. This bill authorizes that full amount, an increase of $1.1 billion or 13 percent more than the current level. It includes funding for the initial deployment of an untested national missile defense system based in Alaska and California. To put it bluntly, our country can't afford spending upwards of $10 billion per year for a bogus missile defense program. First of all, many of our Nation's leading physicists view midcourse defenses as absurd. They have long believed mid-course defenses are easily defeated and won't work for fundamental physics reasons. Second, the truth is pure politics is driving this deployment. On December 11, 2002, the last intercept test of the missile defense system failed. No tests have taken place since then. Nevertheless, on December 17, 2002, President Bush announced his decision to deploy missile defenses in 2004. Sometime after the President's announcement, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) cancelled or postponed every test scheduled since the speech. Nine tests have been cancelled. Despite these cancellations, the schedule for deployment has actually moved up. President Bush simply announced deployment ``in 2004.'' Pentagon official subsequently set a deadline of September 30, 2004. The MDA has stated ``as early as this summer'' for initial operations. Bush Administration officials still maintain that this is an ``eventdriven'' program, where results of tests and simulations determine how the program progresses. Instead, it seems to be schedule-driven. a return to the ``rush to failure'' approach that Lt. Gen. Larry Welch warned about during the Clinton Administration. The current focus of the SDI Program is wrong. As we have witnessed in other national security matters, the Bush Administration appears hell-bent on deploying missile defense, regardless of whether it works. Before taking office, George W. Bush campaigned on the issue of missile defense. As has been highlighted in Richard Clarke's book and elsewhere, before the 9/11 attacks, the foreign and defense policy of the Bush Administration was focused not on terrorism, but on missile defense. Post-9/11, while it should be clear that the real threat is terrorism, the missile defense program has only sped up, and funding has steadily increased. Regrettably, this bill is now brought to the House under a restrictive and no amendments pertaining to the SDI have been made in order to allow debate and votes to cut funding for missile defense or calling for realistic, operational testing before deploying more interceptors. Apparently, no dissenting votes will be tolerated and this Congress will do nothing to stop the Bush Administration from declaring some system operational some time this year. Many SDI supporters argue that any missile defense is better than none. However, the current situation we face maybe worse than nothing. While the currently constituted SDI system will offer no real defense, Bush Administration officials often claim it will be highly effective and will give the President ``more options.'' But it will not work well enough to affect our military posture and will only make potential enemies nervous and lead them to take offensive steps to overcome it. It may push Russia and China to maintain, improve and expand their nuclear arsenals. When weighing the pros and cons of rushing to judgment on SDI deployment, we would do well to remember the advice and counsel of Richard Feynman, one of our Nation's greatest thinkers and most distinguished scientists: ``For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I support the provision in this bill which would at least postpone the 2005 BRAC Round until 2007. Since September 11, 2001, the national security and defense needs of our nation have been changing and are still changing. We are still uncertain as to what resources we will need in the future. First, U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan and Iraq for an uncertain period of time. Just look at Bosnia and Korea. In fact, after considerable effort to keep Congress from increasing end-strength, DOD is not reducing the number of military personnel in Iraq as planned, and Congress is increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years. Second, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is still in the process of being established and the facilities and resources needed for its diverse challenges, including any current military infrastructure that might be needed, are unknown. Third, difficult decisions are yet to be made about the number of troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be located. Fourth, there are efforts underway to raise or remove the caps on the number of troops in Colombia, and we have 2,500 Marines in Haiti. Similarly, we also see moves to shift at least 3,600 troops from South Korea to Iraq. Fifth, congressional oversight of the re-deployment and re- positioning of American troops is needed now more than ever. Yet, there has been no structured, deliberate, and timely effort on the part of DOD to work with Congress to prepare our nation to confront additional and unprecedented challenges in the post-9/11 world. In fact, as reported in the National Journal last month, ``The department [DOD] has no plans to share the study [global posture review] with Congress, although Pentagon officials say the study will inform the BRAC process.'' Sixth, the BRAC process is estimated to cost approximately $15 billion. Savings above the cost of implementing BRAC are not required until 2011. These funds could be used now for our troops now. Seventh, we are confronting very different circumstances in 2005 compared to the BRAC Rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993 or 1995. Savings from previous BRAC rounds were derived almost entirely from substantial reductions in force structure and end strength. But now, we are increasing end strength and considering increases in force structure. Mr. Chairman, the following reports are required from DOD between January 1, 2006, and March 15, 2006, or the BRAC process dies: a. The Pentagon's Integrated Global Basing Strategy, including basing locations, rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic infrastructure requirements associated with that strategy; b. A study of the infrastructure requirements associated with force transformation efforts; a report on infrastructure requirements related to changes to the active and reserve personnel mixtures of the services; c. A study of the infrastructure requirements resulting from the Secretary of Defense's ``10-30-30'' objective; a reassessment of excess infrastructure capacity that is based upon infrastructure, facility, and space requirements of current, future, and surged military forces; and d. A definition of, and infrastructure requirements associated with, ``surge requirements'' as determined by the Secretary as required by section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136). It is prudent for implementation of BRAC to be put off 2 years (1 year if you start at the final due date of the reports) to allow Congress the opportunity and more time to review these reports in light of our nation's evolving defense needs. Realistically, even if Congress was to obtain the reports I've cited during the current BRAC timeline, there would not be enough opportunity for Congress to fully review and debate the merits before we would be required to vote on closure and realignment choices. We should postpone the 2005 BRAC Round for at least 2 years.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of providing a child tax credit. I am supporting the Rangel substitute because it, unlike the underlying bill, is paid for and does not drive our country deeper into debt. The Democratic substitute, like H.R. 4359, calls for permanent extension of the $1,000 per child credit, but would index the credit for inflation and fully pays for this extension through 2010. It would also accelerate the increase in the refundable portion of the credit, from 10% to 15%, starting in 2004. The Democratic substitute also provides the tax credit to low income individuals--it is simply unfair that they are left out of the child tax credit. Because the GOP bill proposes no offsets to their version of the expanded and extended child credit, their proposal costs $228 billion over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is largest in history. Americans now collectively owe more than $7 trillion--$24,304 for every man, woman and child. We have borrowed an additional $280 billion so far this year. The Majority would now like to borrow another $228 billion with the passage of this bill. Someone needs to remind them that we are also fighting a war, a war that has already cost us $150 billion and will cost another $4 billion a month. More tax cuts without offsets will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits now lead to increases in the debt and will create high interest payments that crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates well into the future, making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital. We are literally squandering the wealth of this country by not paying for our tax cuts. This bill further contributes to a glaring problem--the breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility that is going on here in this town. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the substitute and defeat the $228 billion dollars of debt in the underlining bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, as the House of Representatives pauses for a moment of silence in honor of our fallen service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I rise in memory of Lieutenant Seth Dvorin, a member of the Army's 10th Mountain Division and a lifetime resident of East Brunswick, New Jersey. An avid athlete, Seth played high school baseball and football before attending Rutgers University. In 2002, he joined the Army and was commissioned as an officer of the 10th Mountain Division's Battery B, 3rd Battalion, 62nd Air Defense Artillery Regiments. Like many men and women in the armed forces and Reserves, Seth was deployed to Iraq. On February 4, 2004, he was killed when a device exploded on a road near Iskandariyah, Iraq. Seth died in the service of his country and his fellow soldiers. As a result of his bravery, others are alive today. News of Seth's passing spread quickly throughout my Congressional district. Even those who never knew Seth personally still knew that we had lost someone special. Yesterday, more than two hundred students from John Witherspoon Middle School in Princeton gathered at Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath in honor of fallen service men and women. I was heartened to talk with these patriotic students today and understand the depth of their appreciation for the brave people who serve. Seth Dvorin was an American soldier and a respected member of our community. His loss is a tragedy--there is no other word. Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that Seth's country appreciates and mourns the sacrifice he made on our behalf. Men of his character and courage are rare. New Jersey has lost one of its sons, and we will miss him.