Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Would it not be ironic. Let me refer to what a couple of States are doing, partly because Congress has been slow to address this problem. My bill has been sitting in committee for a year now. Some States have acted on their own. I have mentioned the studies that were undertaken in California and the Secretary of State of California has decided to act and has declared that in the future the California machines must have a voter- verified paper trail. In past months, the Secretary of State of Nevada, Dean Heller, announced his decision to buy touch screen voting machines for all of Nevada's counties, and he also announced a mandated paper ballot be created through the use of a voter-verifiable record in all new DRE machines purchased in the State of Nevada in time for the 2004 general election. Said the Secretary of State, ``I did so because the voters of this State overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of a paper trail to protect the integrity of our election.'' Maybe it is time for the voters to let their county officials know how important a voter- verifiable receipt printer is to them. Now, it would make sense for Federal elections that this be handled on a national level and not count on each county and each State to try to protect the integrity of the system for the voters. As the Secretary of State of New Hampshire wrote, ``People in other States talk about the unbelievable burden of recounts. They do not realize the costs of restoring legitimacy is far greater than the costs of maintaining it.'' He gets it. He understands that we have to have an election system that is recognized as legitimate, that allows recounts, that gives voters confidence. New Hampshire uses paper ballots in 100 percent of its precincts; 55 percent of New Hampshire precincts use an optical scan system where you fill in a circle or a box next to the candidate, and then an optical scanner or machine will count those ballots. But you have the record that the voter has marked herself or himself so that provides a voter-verification paper trail. That is 55 percent of their precincts and 45 percent use paper and nothing else. And New Hampshire's system for a number of years now has been highly successful, in the words of the Secretary of State, and ``successful in promoting voter confidence and reliability.'' In fact, to make the pointed that this is not a partisan matter, should not or need not be a partisan matter, I have here a resolution passed by the New Hampshire State Republican convention in 1988 no less. So it is not only not partisan; it is not all that new. They said, ``Whereas, the State of New Hampshire has computerized voting equipment that does not have the ability to recount manually, does not have the ability to recount at all, uses secrecy of internal procedures as a primary security strategy, does not give the voter the ability to ensure the computer has voted as instructed, now therefore, it be resolved,'' etc., etc., ``computerized voting equipment must either produce a manually recountable ballot for the voter's inspection prior to electronically casting the voter's ballot or use as its input a ballot which can be used in a manual recount.'' The Republican Party said, we must have a voter-verified paper trail. I am pleased now that we are joined by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has given a great deal of thought and energy to this question. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the subject at the heart our democracy, voter confidence. What is the central act, Mr. Speaker, of our democracy? It is the vote. For that to work, we must have confidence. In fact, for our government to work, we must have the confidence of the citizens. This is a self-governed country, and it only works if we believe it does. It only works if we maintain faith in the system. Now, obviously, that has a lot to do with how elected officials behave today, it has a lot to do with how the citizens feel that their money is spent, it has a lot to do with how much we elected officials stay in touch with the people. But it also has to do with the process of voting, itself; and in recent efforts to strengthen our voting procedures, particularly following the problems that became apparent in the 2000 election, a number of changes have been made that might actually serve to reduce voter confidence. In November of this year, it is expected that 50 million votes, almost one-third of the votes that are likely to be cast in this country, will be cast on machines, touch screen, electronic machines, what are known as direct recording electronic voting machines, or DREs; and these 50 million votes will be unauditable. If we do not pass legislation requiring a voter-verified audit for each vote at the time each voter votes, we may as well outlaw recounts. Now, I ask my colleagues if they know any candidate for office who would want to run without the possibility of a recount if there were questions about the election. If we do not take legislative action, we might as well outlaw recounts in Federal elections. Somewhere along the way, we allowed the vote count to become privatized, and we should act now to undo that. In July of last year, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelly released a report of a touch screen task force. It was comprised of computer scientists, election officials, representatives from the Secretary of State's office, election reform groups, and election officials. This task force said, ``There needs to be voter verification imposed by a date certain.'' By voter verification, what they meant was a procedure, a mechanism, so that each time a voter goes into the booth that that voter can verify that his or her intentions are correctly recorded, in other words, that the vote cast is the same as the vote recorded. Now, at the same time that the Secretary of State of California was releasing this task force report, computer scientists reviewed the source code used by one of this country's major voting machines; and their analysis, which is commonly referred to as the ``Johns Hopkins Report,'' found that ``this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We identified several problems, including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats and poor software development processes. We show that voters without any insider privileges can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanism within the voting terminal software. Further, we show that even the most serious of our outsider attacks could have been discovered and executed without access to a source code. We conclude that this voting system,'' and now this is one of the most common voting systems in America, ``that this voting system is unsuitable for use in a general election.'' Well, there are a lot of technical computer science terms there, but what they mean is the software is unreliable, that the machines may not record the votes the way the voters intended them to be recorded, either through inadvertent error or through malicious software hacking. The State of Maryland commissioned a third-party review of their electronic voting machines. This review was conducted by Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC, last summer. A version of that report was released and it said: ``This risk assessment has identified several high-risk vulnerabilities in the implementation of the managerial, operational, and technical controls for the voting system. If these risks are exploited, significant impact could occur on the accuracy, integrity, and availability of election results. The system is at high risk of compromise.'' Again, this is written in technical terms, but it says quite simply, your vote may not be counted. Now, even if great pains have been taken to get rid of the bugs in the software and the systems are guarded so hackers do not get to them, we still cannot be certain, we still cannot be certain that the system works to record the voters' intentions accurately. Now, some election officials say, well, we have been using these electronic machines for several years now and we have never had a problem, to which I say, Mr. Speaker, how do you know? If the system has an obvious breakdown, then you know it does not work. But if it appears to be recording votes, you cannot know, fundamentally cannot know whether it does work. That is why it is necessary that there be a parallel audit trail, so that each voter owns the verification. Not some discount company that vouches for its machine, not even the election officials of the State, but the voter herself or himself can verify that the vote that is recorded is the vote that was intended. Maryland commissioned yet another study, because there was continuing uncertainty following the really troubling results of that first study. This study, prepared by another organization, was released in January of this year. It was based on what they called a ``red team exercise,'' a deliberate attempt to compromise the system, to see how easily they could be compromised. That reported said: ``The State of Maryland election system, comprising technical, operation and procedural components, as configured, contains considerable security risks that can cause moderate to severe disruption in an election.'' Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the central act, the centerpiece of our democracy, voting. What could be more important? Well, there is a way to deal with this problem. It is technologically and practically feasible. In fact, it is easy to give each voter the control of the verification, to give each voter the assurance, the confidence, that his or her vote has been recorded the way she or he intended. I have introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. I introduced this about a year ago, working with a number of computer scientists and election officials and others, seeking input from civil rights groups and public interest groups and groups of citizens with physical disabilities; and we crafted language that would solve this security problem. Quite simply, my legislation would require that all voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits. So you go into the booth, if there is an electronic machine, one of these DRE touch-screen machines, for example. You would vote. Before you submit the vote, after you have chosen the candidates and selected your position on the referenda and so forth, the machine would produce a parallel audited record, a paper account of your vote. One can look at it and say, yep, that is my vote. Or if it is not, one can declare it a spoiled ballot and have the election officials reset the machine and vote again, or, vote once and the other ballot is disposed of. The legislation would not only require a voter-verified paper record for each voter at the time of voting, it would ban the use of undisclosed software and wireless communication devices in voting systems. It would require that all voting systems meet these requirements in time for the general election of this year, November 2004. It would require that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with physical disabilities 1 year earlier than is provided under the current versions of the law. My legislation would also require mandatory surprise recounts in one- half of 1 percent of all jurisdictions so that the voters, each voter, can have assurance that the system is working. This will go a long way toward removing one of the areas of uncertainty. I think any of us, when we hold town meetings or just walking around the streets of our towns, we encounter people who say, ``I do not vote. My vote does not count.'' I spend a lot of time arguing with people like that. As someone who won an election by a razor-thin margin once, I can assure them that every vote does count. But more and more I hear people saying, my vote will not be counted. And that is a very troubling sign. If people do not go to the polls for whatever reason, it is a loss to democracy. It is a tragedy for our country. And we dare not let them have the excuse that their vote will not be counted because the machine will malfunction, because there are bugs in the software, or because the software has been tampered with. The centerpiece of our democracy, that is what we are talking about. And I am pleased to be joined in this discussion by two people who have given a great deal of thought to this issue. I am joined by my friend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) who served as attorney general in New Mexico before coming here to the House of Representatives. And he understands how important it is that we maintain the confidence of citizens in their government and in the process of government. And he understands how we can do that. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. HOLT. These electronic machines are now in fairly common use around the country, and so we are beginning to get a number of stories of questionable behavior or real horror stories. There are cases where it appears that the electronic machines have actually counted backwards as the evening has gone along. There are other cases where, well, in one election recently, ironically in the State of Florida, there was a special election for a State office, several candidates on the ballot in a couple of counties. Some thousands of voters turned out for this single election. There was only one election on the ballot, and 137 voters who showed up, signed in and went into the voting booth evidently did not vote. Their votes were not recorded. In other elections there are suspicious results where all of the candidates, all of the winning candidates got exactly the same vote total numbering in the thousands. So there are a number of instances where there are questionable results, and the point is you will never know was there something wrong because you cannot go back and audit them. There is no audit. There is no recount possible. So I am afraid that anytime there is a close election from now on, unless we have this parallel voter-verified audit trail, there will be a cloud hanging over every close election and the loser and the loser's supporters will wonders if they have been cheated out of the election by some sort or error or, at worse, by hacking, by theft, by fraud. And that cloud cannot be dispelled.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those stirring words that speak to democracy. I cannot emphasize strongly enough what we are talking about here. This is not an exercise in computer science. It is not a game of political gotcha. It is not a partisan matter. It is not antitechnology. It is simply an effort to see that voters believe that they own their government, that they own their vote, that the sanctity of their vote is preserved. Now, someone who has studied this both theoretically and practically is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who has looked at this with the eyes and the mind of a political scientist, but also as someone who has had his share of close elections and knows what it would mean if we had elections all across the country without the possibility of a recount. I am pleased to yield to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it does not provide enough security. This past Tuesday, a day ago, I voted in the school board elections in my home district. For the first time our county, Mercer County, New Jersey, used electronic touch screen machines, the so- called DRE, one brand of the DRE machines. As I expected, they were clear, easy to use, accessible. I think they would be good for people with physical disabilities, better probably than the old lever machines. And they were, as I expected, totally unverifiable. Now, why do I say that? Because the manufacturers will say, oh, we have batteries in there so if the power fails, they will not crash. Of course, there are a lot of computer engineers who promise that their software will not crash. But the manufacturers say, well, we store the votes in two different memory locations so there is redundancy. With the electronic machines there is no way after the polls close that you can go back and determine what was the intention of each voter because there is this fundamental principle of secrecy. One's ballot must be kept secret. They cannot go back and say, you, Mr. Udall, voter number 23 today, voted for candidate A in this election and candidate C in that election. So it is fundamentally different from your ATM machine, your cash machine at the bank or from other electronics that you work with because at the end of the month, with your bank, you have got either your checks or photocopies of your checks, and the bank tells you how much they think you have, and you tell them how much you think you have, and you get together on it. With a secret ballot one cannot do that. They cannot tell someone how they voted. They cannot know how someone voted. So there is necessarily a gap between the casting of the vote and the recording of the vote. It is fundamental to these machines. One cannot get around it. We cannot build redundancy in there because there is a gap filled with software between the casting of the vote and the recording of the vote.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 97 and in recognition of the Garden Club of America and its members in central New Jersey. Since its inception in 1913, the Garden Club of America has evolved from simply focusing on good gardening practices to becoming a leading advocacy group for environmental protection and community involvement. The men and women of the Garden Club work intimately with the soil and plants and know the value of clear air, clean water, and uncontaminated earth. I work with Garden Club members in New Jersey and here in Washington, DC. They come to Capitol Hill to inform members of Congress about necessary protections for our air and water and necessary funding for preserving open space. Their hands-on work, literally, plays an equally important role in preserving the land and water around us. Garden Club members disseminate information on good gardening practices and maintenance of healthy lawns or golf courses with a minimum of chemicals. They also organize community events around gardening and provide scholarships and fellowships for young people interested in studying related fields. The Garden Club of America has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the joys of horticulture to all Americans. They were instrumental in the founding of the National Arboretum and the Archives of American Gardens at the Smithsonian Institution and have played a significant role in the founding and upkeep of numerous other major gardens around the country. Now, more than ever, these activists are turning their energies on the major environmental issues of the day. They are together a force to be reckoned with. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and continuing to encourage the work of Garden Club of America members in their districts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to recognize Ms. Natalie Stern, who will be representing New Jersey as our princess in the 2004 Cherry Blossom Princess Program. Since 1948, state societies have selected accomplished female students to represent their states in the Cherry Blossom Princess Program. During the week-long program, the princesses participate in a number of events that provide them with an opportunity to share the culture and unique traditions of their state. The program culminates with a princess being crowned as the United States Cherry Blossom Queen, who will travel to Japan as a representative of the United States. During her two weeks in Japan, the U.S. Cherry Blossom Queen participates in events across the country and meets with Japanese dignitaries. I am pleased that the New Jersey State Society picked Natalie Stern to represent our state in the festival. Ms. Stern is a shining example of the best New Jersey has to offer. She is a native of Pennington, New Jersey. She attended Stuart Country Day School in Princeton. Natalie continued her education at Indiana University and graduated in 2003 with two bachelor degrees. In addition to her studies at Indiana University, Natalie served as an intern at the White House as well as a fellow at the International Television and Radio Society in New York City. I would like to extend my congratulations to Natalie and all of the other young women who have been selected to participate in the festival and I wish them all continued success in the future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3108. This bill passed both the House and the other body in a bipartisan manner, and I had hoped that we could conclude this process in a bipartisan manner. However, I must say that I am disappointed that the conference report is actually quite partisan. The conference report would jeopardize the retirement security of millions of hard-working middle-class families who work for small businesses. Though it provides needed reform for some pensions, it ignores the need to provide relief to the more than 60,000 mainly small businesses that join together to pool resources and reduce risk for their employees' pensions. Without relief, these small businesses face excise taxes and mandatory additional contributions, putting the companies and the family-supporting jobs they produce at risk. The conferees have chosen to forget the retirement security of approximately 9\1/2\ million workers who rely on these jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the conference report's changes to pension plans that are sponsored by large, individual companies. The people who work for these companies deserve to have their pensions strengthened and improved. For example, replacing the current 30-year Treasury bond interest rate that employers use to determine their defined benefit pension contribution with an index based on corporate bonds will add stability to long-term pension growth. It is critical, however, that we provide the same pension security to people who work for small businesses. Congress should not pick and choose which pension plans can get relief--we should provide relief for all defined benefit plans regardless of the size of the company offering them. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill so that we can come back with new legislation that would provide proper pension security for all employees.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the courtesy so we can at least consider the perfected form of this amendment. The need for my amendment is precipitated by a recent court decision that would lift a ban that has been in effect in the State of New Jersey since 1999 that restricts the roads on which the very wide 102- inch or wider trucks travel. And this amendment would uphold current restrictions and current policy, maintain current policy and, thus, by extension, affirm the right of States to regulate the super-sized trucks on roads that are not part of the national network. In 1999 the then Secretary of Transportation and his associate at the Federal Highway Administration, the administrator, in writing and in person with Members of Congress and concerned State and local officials, categorically affirmed that, quote, ``nothing in Federal law or regulation would prevent New Jersey from banning large single or twin-trailer combinations from the subject routes unless they were traveling to a terminal or making pick ups or deliveries on these routes.'' And with that clarification, the State of New Jersey, the former Governor, Governor Whitman, subsequently adopted new limitations on what roads large trucks may and may not use.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment at the desk with an amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment, in fact, is to maintain current law and current policy, to make sure that this new law, should it take effect, would not change anything. New Jersey will continue and has declared its intention of arguing this in court; and we, the State of New Jersey, expect to win in court. We just do not want to change the policy with this new legislation. So this was not to side-step the courts but, rather, to keep the law the same.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this would not preclude the truckers from continuing their suit or the State.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, and I will address those points. The amendment simply allows the States to have the authority that the Department of Transportation determined 5 years ago that they had under that existing transportation law. We just want to make sure that in the legislation we are considering today we do not change that. If it is determined that that is in violation of the Constitution, certainly they will be the governing decision, but if it is not determined, we do not want anything in this law to preclude those States' rights. With that, I ask support for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in just over 3 years the United States has faced two acute intelligence failures. The first was the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The second can be found in the arguments made to go to war in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Anti-American sentiment has been strengthened and spread across the Islamic world. In the aftermath the United States has been saddled with a long-term commitment to pay the rising costs of war and endure the continuing loss of life in Iraq. It is in this context America's hard- won lessons from its past covert activities should be turned to, to guide us in our current endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a copy of the following speech by Professor Raymond H. Close delivered to the Princeton Middle East Society at Princeton University last month on the uses and misuses of intelligence in the conflict with Iraq. Uses and Misuses of Intelligence (By Raymond H. Close) Today I want to describe to you the details of a few specific situations that took place a number of years ago where intelligence estimates and covert actions were employed, and in some cases deliberately distorted, in a manner calculated to support policy objectives of the U.S. Government that might otherwise not have received the support of the American people and the approval of the world community. From an assessment of those experiences in the past, perhaps we can draw some useful lessons to guide our intelligence officials today in fulfilling their professional obligations more honestly and appropriately. My own experiences in the twenty years that I spent actually engaged in clandestine operations in the Middle East were entirely in the areas of old-fashioned espionage and so- called covert action--which I define as the effort to achieve specific strategic objectives for the United States through secret intervention in the political processes of another country. As you all know, the term ``covert action'' can also include the employment of lethal violence in some situations to accomplish objectives that could not otherwise be justified by our own legal system or by humanitarian principles, carried out by methods designed to hide our government's role behind a shield of ``plausible denial''. Let me start by telling you about some of my experiences in Lebanon during the years 1952-1958, from which some lessons can still be drawn, I think. In 1957, I participated in a covert action operation in Lebanon, explicitly ordered by President Eisenhower, in which it was our objective to keep a government in power that was committed to the open and enthusiastic support of American policy objectives in the region, but was under assault by internal elements determined that their country should adopt a more independent stance. We were initially successful, but our crude manipulation of the democratic process during Lebanon's 1957 parliamentary elections contributed directly to a civil war that was ended only on the landing of a large U.S. Marine and Army military force one year later. To justify that armed intervention, we deliberately and knowingly provided false intelligence to the United Nations purporting to prove that our forces had responded to indirect aggression against the freely elected government by forces inspired and supported by international communism. This was pure fabrication. By the autumn of 1958, following our military intervention, the government that we had supported by our covert action had been replaced by a regime composed primarily of individuals who had been leaders of the political opposition, but who were not by any objective standard enemies of the United States. The supreme irony, I always thought, was that shortly thereafter Barry Goldwater wrote a book in which he extolled the glorious success of our ill-advised and ultimately counterproductive covert action operation in Lebanon. Goldwater recorded that, in a triumphant demonstration of how to employ U.S. power in the cause of freedom, a communist regime had been overthrown in Lebanon and replaced by a pro-western government. This breathtaking contradiction of historical fact was an example to me of how effective the big lie can be, and has, particularly in recent months, reminded me to keep an open mind when it comes to assertions of fact by senior American policymakers. A case in point: On February 5th, 2003, just one year ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his now- famous report to the United Nations Security Council, said this: ``My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.'' Secretary Powell's use of the pronoun ``we'' in this statement was clearly intended to include CIA Director George Tenet, whose face appeared right over Powell's shoulder throughout the presentation. Tenet's presence could only have been intended to put the CIA's official stamp of approval on everything Powell was reporting--even information that Tenet must have known was highly questionable. The Bush Administration apparently felt under pressure to strengthen its case for war in Iraq by persistent enhancement of whatever intelligence happened to be available that seemed to support their policy objectives. The details of how that corruption was implemented are much less important, however, than the violation of principles that allowed a preemptive war to be initiated on the basis of evidence that was known by the senior levels of our government to be inconclusive, and even demonstrably false in some cases. This misuse of intelligence will have long-term costs, first among which is that American and world public opinion will, in future crisis situations, be so dubious about the credibility of American intelligence that approval and support of other U.S. military actions overseas may be withheld by the international community even in situations where intervention is urgently called for. Secondly, the personal image of George W. Bush relying on questionable information to make life and death decisions has drastically compromised his credibility and effectiveness as a national and world leader. Finally, the present crisis has revealed flaws in the way various intelligence agencies in Washington evaluate their product, and how honestly and objectively it is packaged and marketed to their customers in a competitive political arena in which the possession of allegedly ``solid'' secret information can provide such a formidable advantage. Another appropriate example, from which valuable lessons can still be derived today, concerns events in Africa in the late summer of 1998, when the Clinton Administration retaliated against terrorist bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam by launching long- range Tomahawk missiles at targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan. The missile attack on Khartoum, in particular, because it was based on embarrassingly inaccurate intelligence, made subsequent American counter-terrorism strategy much more difficult to implement. At that time, in September 1998, 1 wrote the following in an op-ed piece published in the Sunday Outlook Section of the Washington Post under the headline: ``We Can't Defeat Terrorism with Bombs and Bombast''. This is an extract from that article, written exactly three years before 9/11: ``To launch missiles into countries with which we are technically at peace--and to kill their citizens--is to declare that the United States is free to make its own rules for dealing with the international problem of terrorism. What standing will we have in the future to complain about any other country that attacks the territory of its neighbor, citing as justification the need to protect itself from terrorism? Did those who authorized these attacks think through the long-term implications of this short-sighted and dangerous precedent? ``Let's get down to practical realities. The new threat we face is often stateless, without sovereign territory or official sponsorship. Friendly governments around the world-- especially those with large Muslim populations such as India, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Gulf states and the new republics of Central Asia--share a common need for internal and regional stability. Terrorism is a weapon that threatens all civil authority. This set of circumstances provides an unprecedented incentive, which is to say a God-given opportunity, to establish new systems and procedures for intergovernmental cooperation, even among states that may differ on other basic issues. But the fight against a silent and hidden common enemy requires infinite patience and tact on the part of law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. It demands absolute secrecy, mutual trust and professional respect. If the United States loses its cool without warning, if it is seen by others as a loose cannon that resorts to sudden violent action on a massive scale, the critically needed cooperation will not be there.'' Later in the same article I added: ``President Clinton and others have labeled all Islamic terrorists as members or `affiliates' of the `Osama bin Laden Network of Terrorism.' This is, of course, the common mistake of demonizing one individual as the root of all evil. In fact, elevating bin Laden to that status only gives him a mantle of heroism now and, more ominously, will guarantee him martyrdom if he should die. Informed students of the subject have known for years that although the various militant Islamist movements around the world share a common ideology and many of the same grievances, they are not a monolithic international organization. Our recent attacks. unfortunately, may have inflamed their common zeal and hastened their unification and centralization--while probably adding hosts of new volunteers to their ranks. We are rolling up a big snowball.'' I received many complimentary messages after that article appeared in the Washington Post, including one from Robert Bryant, Deputy Director of the FBI, who invited me to lunch and told me that he had instructed all his officers who were working on the terrorism target to read it. He particularly appreciated the emphasis that I had put on dealing with terrorism by patient criminal investigation and cooperation with other international law enforcement agencies rather than by what I had dubbed ``bombs and bombast''. The intelligence indicating that the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was producing a precursor of biological weapons was completely incorrect--another case of bad intelligence having been seized upon to justify a violent military initiative that proved to be unjustified and seriously counter-productive. Thomas Pickering was Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs at the time. I clearly remember when this distinguished and highly respected statesman, a former U.S. ambassador to Jordan, Israel, India, the Philippines and the United Nations, appeared on national television to explain and defend the Clinton Administration's Tomahawk missile attack on the Sudan, offering confident and positive assurances of the accuracy of U.S. intelligence reports that the Daral-Shifa plant was a critically dangerous installation--putting himself in exactly the same humiliating position that Colin Powell is in today as a result of his similarly inaccurate testimony before the United Nations one year ago. Finally, I would like to take a look at some important features of the present situation in Iraq, looking again for lessons that should have been drawn from earlier experience, but were ignored. Here I am prepared to go out on a limb with some current intelligence estimates of my own. In other words, I'm ready to make some predictions about the future, based on my own past experiences. I offer these predictions with confidence, but with sincere hopes that they will prove to be wrong. The United States began its invasion of Iraq operating under a number of seriously flawed expectations that were based on nothing other than bad intelligence, construed by dedicated ideologues to suit their own preconceived misjudgments. One expectation was that gratitude toward the United States for liberating their country from Saddam's terrible dictatorship would be the determining factor in shaping Iraq's political future, in defiance of overwhelming evidence that their own social and cultural heritage would inevitably take precedence over American dictates. Secondly, the U.S. has maintained a confident expectation that a new government of Iraq would grant the U.S. long-term leases on military bases from which the U.S. could project its power throughout the entire Middle East and Central Asian region for a long time into the future. Another expectation has been that the new Iraqi government will continue in the future to cooperate closely with the United States in the management of its oil and gas resources, even when Iraq's own economic and political needs might be in conflict with American objectives. And fourthly, the Bush Administration leadership (and especially the neo-cons and their allies in Congress) have all confidently expected that Iraq would become a fully cooperative partner in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian problem, even when U.S. policies are in conflict with Iraqi conceptions justice. It is as if our intelligence experts have suffered total amnesia when it comes to the historic realities of nationalism in the Arab world. My prediction is this: Any new political group aspiring to leadership of Iraq must recognize that its popularity and its credibility will depend on the degree to which it can demonstrate its independence (read that as ``defiance'') of American influence. When this finally becomes apparent, the United States Government will decide to interfere with the political process to whatever extent, and by whatever means, are necessary to ensure that control of the country remains with acceptably cooperative and compliant Iraqis. I think that such an operation would of necessity be anything but covert, and I'm ready to predict that it will be a messy failure. My conviction that the CIA will be directed to ensure the installation of a compliant new regime in Iraq is based on my experiences in Lebanon and elsewhere, which demonstrated that men who occupy the Oval Office seem inevitably to develop an irrational confidence that by pushing a button they can have their dirty tricks department across the Potomac River in Langley perform a covert action operation to fix the problem--justifying the action as necessary to protect the freedom of the American people and the welfare of all humanity. In my opinion, the hard reality is that when push comes to shove, the Bush Administration, for all its exalted protestations of virtue and Godliness, is not going to allow a government that defies U.S. policy objectives to take power in Baghdad. High principles will, as I have seen so many times in my own experience, be compromised as necessary to produce results that can be presented as justification for a preemptive war costing thousands of human lives and uncounted billions of dollars. The end result will be that the entire Middle East will be destabilized, while the forces supporting and sustaining terrorism will be injected with new vigor.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly announce the introduction of the Knowledge Utilization in Education Act of 2004. This act, which I will introduce today in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, aims to increase the use of research-based knowledge to boost student performance and close the achievement gap. There is a clear need for this legislation. Research shows that student achievement increases when teachers use practices based on scientifically valid research. While the No Child Left Behind Act requires educators to use instructional practices based on research, such practices are not widely used. Given that students in 25,000 public schools may not be making adequate yearly progress, steps must be taken now to meet the demand for research-based instruction. Overall, the act would help schools by providing new resources so educators can link education knowledge to classroom practice. The bill would also launch a national leadership initiative to bolster education knowledge. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this act. Congress should act now to give classroom teachers the research-based tools they need to help our Nation's children succeed. Thank you.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the FY2005 Concurrent Budget Resolution that was reported by the House Budget Committee and that we have before this House for final passage. I do so for a variety of reasons that I want to explain. I am heartened by our country's recent up tick in the index of leading economic indicators. Yet, we are also chastened because we all count among our families, friends, and neighbors, dislocated workers who have fallen victim to corporate down-sizing and dismayed recent college graduates and long-term unemployed Americans who are looking for their first or next jobs. All are seeking to grasp a rung up the ladder of economic opportunity, and this budget will not help them. This misguided budget resolution frames critical policy choices for our national economy that will shape our lives and the lives of all of our constituents at the regional, State, community, and personal levels for many years to come. One policy option, that is embodied in this flawed budget resolution, is to keep borrowing against our future and that of our children, and perhaps their children, to keep our economic ship afloat. This is how we have added more to the national debt in the past three years than in the prior two centuries of our Nation's history. A vote in favor of this budget resolution is a vote for more ``borrow and spend'' policies that are responsible for our country's current fiscal nightmare. Adding insult to fiscal injury, this budget resolution also clears the way for more tax cuts for those who need them the least, given the predisposition of the Bush Administration, and who have benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts enacted by this Republican- controlled Congress so far. Where is the tidal wave of re-investment in new plants, equipment, and jobs and factories in America that the proponents of this budget have promised us repeatedly in the past three years? At their behest, the American people are required to put our collective faith in the belief that the ladder of economic opportunity will not be pulled up behind the most affluent. If we continue down this ill-advised, self-indulgent path, we run the risk of drowning in a sea of red ink and our children and grandchildren can look forward to lives of indebtedness and growing inequality. This Congress could make a better choice. In so doing, we could build upon what has worked in the past when our economy was growing by leaps and bounds and creating millions of new jobs, as recently as the 1990s. We could abandon the fraud of supply-side economics, once and for all, step up, and reassert control over shaping our preferred economic future--one that offers more good jobs, a higher standard of living, and real economic opportunity for all of the American people. Sadly, this budget resolution takes us farther down the wrong track. Over several generations, American economic wealth and power has been built largely on the foundation of unparalleled imagination, research, innovation, productivity, and hard work. Investment and commercial opportunity in our economic system have always followed new discoveries and laboratory breakthroughs, not the other way around. Before prudent investors have risked their capital in new commercial ventures, our scientists, inventors, and pioneer thinkers have been supported in their efforts and rewarded for their successes in achieving what had previously been unthinkable. If we want to strengthen our economy again, in the future, if we want to create new, good-paying jobs for all of our people, and promote broad-based, sustainable economic development, then I believe we must become more creative and provide more support from the public and private sector for cutting-edge research and development. We have to stop borrowing and spending. We have to stop eating our seed corn. We have to provide increased and more sustained support from the public and private sectors for basic research and development. Up to now, America has always been a nation of explorers, creators, and inventors. We need to regain that edge and ride a new wave of research and follow-on commercial development into a new age of economic growth and prosperity. But this budget resolution does none of this. The supporters of this budget don't want to keep faith and invest in the American people, increase Federal support for research, development, and entrepreneurial drive, and rebuild American competitiveness in the global economy. If they did, they could not in good conscience vote for the skewed priorities of this budget resolution and the Draconian, counterproductive cuts it will dictate. Let me cite a few of the most glaring examples: On Federal support for research and development, the Federal research and development portfolio would mostly decline compared to last year's funding, consistent with the 0.5 percent increase for nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending overall. Even the two favored nondefense research and development agencies in recent years are being forced to accept diminished expectations: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). On education, this budget again short-changes our students, teachers, and schools. It will provide $8.8 billion less than authorized and promised when the Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act at the urging of President Bush. It fails to provide any increase in the maximum Pell grant award at a time of soaring tuition costs in higher education. It also falls way short in funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), providing only half of the 40 percent Federal funding ceiling. For America's veterans, this budget is another slap in the face and betrayal of what they have earned and been promised. This budget provides $1.3 billion less than what the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has recommended--on a bipartisan basis--to maintain vital veterans health care programs. Over the next five years, this budget cuts $1.6 billion from the total needed just to maintain current service levels. In practical terms, this shortfall will imperil health care for at least 170,000 veterans. Alternatively, it will result in 13,000 fewer doctors, nurses, and other caregivers needed to treat veterans. No wonder the Disabled Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS are all strongly opposed to this budget. On the environment, this budget promises more tax cuts, while cutting funding for clean air, safe drinking water, and the cleanup of toxic waste sites. It actually calls for cutting $1.5 billion (5.1 percent) from last year's funding level. That means clean water and drinking water needs, like the elevated lead levels in DC's water supply, will go unmet. Groundwater contamination from leaking MTBE and petroleum will continue. Promised conservation funding will not be provided and American taxpayers will foot the bill for egregious corporate polluters. On homeland security, this budget provides $648 million (14.6 percent) less than last year for first responders, with firefighter assistance grants in particular being cut by $246 million (33 percent) below last year. It also cuts funding for port security by $79 million (63.2 percent) below last year's funding level. At a time when our Nation continues to face new threats to homeland security, it cuts $857 million from the President's request, applying cuts to all homeland security activities outside of the Pentagon. On health care, this budget requires $2.2 billion in Medicaid cuts at precisely the time when nearly every State has already been forced to cut their Medicaid programs. It forfeits $1.1 billion for State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which means 4,000,000 children will lose coverage over the next four years. NIH will be cut by $553 million below last year's funding level, when adjusted for inflation and over the next five years, public health programs face an $11.4 billion shortfall. With over 887,000 people in the U.S. living with HIV/AIDS, this budget cuts $28 million. Cardiovascular disease research will be cut by $22 million, even though heart disease is the leading cause of death in America. For American workers, this budget gives them the back of the hand. It fails to extend unemployment benefits and drastically shortchanges child care funding, when work requirements for welfare recipients are being toughened. It calls for $3.1 billion in cuts for safety net programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the earned income tax credit, child nutrition programs, and public employee retirement benefits. For our small business constituents and entrepreneurs, this budget is badly deficient. While funding for the Small Business Administration is not broken out as a separate function in this budget resolution, the Bush Administration has already made clear its intention to slash SBA funding in FY 2005 and beyond. President Bush's FY 2005 budget calls for cutting at least $79 million for the SBA from last year's funding. That would leave total funding for the SBA at nearly half of what was proposed in Former President Clinton's final budget request. It would also remove all Federal subsidies to the 7(a) loan program, the SBA's flagship program, and instead place higher fees on small businesses. The microloan program is targeted for elimination altogether. I could go on and on with examples of why this budget ought to be rejected. Suffice it to say that it is more of the same policy prescriptions that have caused an $8.5 trillion fiscal slide and the loss of nearly 3 million jobs in the last three years. We can and should do better. I want to support a budget that reflects fiscal responsibility and that will help all Americans achieve financial security. That means investing more in the American people and in programs to help create good-paying jobs, improve education, lower health care costs, make college affordable, helps small business grow, keeps faith with our veterans and military retirees, protects our homeland, and promote environmental sustainability. This budget resolution fails on all counts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 189. The first International Geophysical was held from July 1957 to December 1958. It was modeled after the successful International Polar Year of 1882 and its 50th anniversary in 1932. The International Geophysical Year allowed over 60,000 scientists from 67 countries around the world to take part in a series of coordinated observations of various geophysical phenomena. I remember it well because I was reading about the IGY that sparked my interest in science and set me toward a career in physics that I pursued before coming to Congress. The scientific activities spanned the globe from the North to the South Poles. In particular, the research in the Antarctic yielded new estimates of the Earth's total ice content--a number of extreme importance given today's melting of major glaciers due to global warming. In addition, instruments to record cosmic rays, spectroscopes to analyze the signals, and balloons were put to use to explore the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Finally, post-World War II developments in rocketry made possible the exploration of space employing what was then the exciting new technology of artificial scientific satellites with the launching of Sputnik and Vanguard. Because 2007 will be the 50th anniversary of this most exciting worldwide scientific undertaking, I wholeheartedly support H. Con. Res 189 for celebrating 2007 as the International Geophysical Year--2 and recommend that Congress, as in 1957, promote world-wide cooperation in the commemoration of the International Geophysical Year--2 with scientific activities so that we humans can better understand our environment and our place in the universe.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Child Nutrition Act and I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. This bill is a step in the right direction of important reforms in federal child nutrition programs. I would like to thank Chairman Boehner, Mr. Castle and Ranking Member Mr. Miller and Ms. Woolsey for their hard work on the bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman for taking my amendment eliminating the cost-accounting requirement for severe need breakfast programs in the manager amendment in the committee markup. This paperwork problem was brought to my attention by the director of the New Jersey Child Nutrition Programs, Kathy Kuser. Many States, including New Jersey as well as Wisconsin and Illinois, are making significant efforts to improve their school breakfast participation rate, and reducing the paperwork requirements would help these efforts. Under current law, schools in which at least 40 percent of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were free or reduced price qualify for severe need breakfast assistance. They have to calculate their costs per breakfast by prorating their labor costs, and figuring out their food, supplies and other costs associated with the school breakfast program. They have to save their receipts and calculations and submit them in order to get the severe need reimbursement. Removing the cost-accounting requirement would be a significant paperwork reduction for the schools without significantly increasing cost for the government. I also want to commend the committee for including direct certification for children from food stamp households for free school meals. Many schools are not aware of this method to determine eligibility for free meals. Direct certification improves access to eligible children for free school lunch meals and improves program integrity according to a study done by Mathematica. I am also pleased to see the bill authorizes grants for ``farm-to- cafeteria'' projects that include nutrition education activities that incorporate the participation of school children in farm and agricultural education projects and that procure local foods from small- and medium-sized farms for school meals. Finally, the expansion of eligibility for Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for children in shelters from age 13 to 18 who live in domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters is a wonderful improvement to the previous child nutrition legislation. My constituents who participate in Mercer Street Friends, Anchor House, Triad House, Family Preservation Center (Homefront) and the Family Preservation House would benefit from this change to CACFP eligibility. These organizations depend on food donations to feed their clients who are nutritionally at risk and should be eligible for this important nutrition support program. I do want to point out two provisions of the bill I wish had been improved. While there are federal dietary guidelines for meals served that are reimbursed through the Federal meals program, Federal nutrition standards for foods that are not offered through the Federal meals program are lacking. As a result, children are faced with numerous food choices during the school day with little nutritional value. Our colleague, Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH) offered an amendment in Committee that would have resulted in enormous improvements in the school nutrition environment for children for foods sold on campus. We also should have eliminated the reduced price school meals category. Such action would make the school meal programs more accessible to low-income families; better prepare students to learn; and make the programs easier to administer. Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs for their hard work and I ask my colleague to support this bill that will eliminate barriers to participation for low-income children and families and ensure greater access to these critical nutrition programs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act. The need for human organs for donation has long been a silent crisis, one that rarely hits the headlines but can have a tremendous impact on thousands of patients and their families. Medical advances and the generosity of organ and tissue donors enable more than 22,000 Americans per year to receive organ transplants that save or enhance their lives. But despite the self-sacrifice and charity of so many donors, more than 84,000 Americans are currently on a waiting list, hoping to prolong their lives by finding a matching donor. Tragically, the number of patients waiting for organ transplants rose more than five times as fast as the number of transplant operations in the 1990s, according to an annual report by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). As a result, about 5,500 people die in the United States each year (or 15 patients each day) while waiting for a donated heart, liver, kidney, or other organ. Every 16 minutes, a new name is added to this growing waiting list. These numbers are indeed concerning, and they should merit greater attention. Each number represents a person--a human being with a family, friends, and a future, and I have met with several of them who live in central New Jersey. We need to do everything we can to ensure that they get access to the organs that could very well save their lives. As one who carries an organ donor card and has discussed organ donation with his family, I urge all of my colleagues to consider taking similar steps. This action can mean the difference between life and death for someone in need of an organ transplant. I am glad to see that the House is considering the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act, which would help improve access to organs by implementing a public awareness campaign, reimbursing expenses for organ donors, and authorizing grants to help hospitals coordinate their efforts with organ procurement organizations. While this legislation deserves our wholehearted support, it is also important to remember that the need for sustained investments in biomedical research and development at the NIH and in the basic science research, at agencies like the NSF, that creates the knowledge base needed to move ahead with medical research. Investing in R&D is about more than just giving jobs to scientists--it's about saving lives and improving the quality of life for countless Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act and to remember the importance of supporting biomedical and basic science research.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution commends the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the Coalition forces for their valiant service. It is appropriate to do that. They have made huge sacrifices, their families have. In many cases, the soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in their response to the call of their country. As a member of the committee that oversees the Intelligence Community, let me also add my gratitude to the incredibly hardworking men and women of the Intelligence Community whose role in Iraq is less public but no less vital and in many cases is every bit as dangerous. These dedicated public servants should have all the tools they need to accomplish their mission. So rather than simply commending the Iraqi people for their courage and their accomplishments, rather than simply thanking these brave men and women in the U.S. armed services and Intelligence Community with words, we should see that they have what they need to do their jobs. This resolution today, I believe, has different motivation than simply to honor our troops. It really is more about the House of Representatives patting themselves on the back than it is to honor our troops. It perpetuates a simplistic thinking that took us into the war with unexamined intelligence, and clearly there were deficiencies in the intelligence that took us up to and into that war. It perpetuates the simplistic thinking that left our troops unprepared for the postwar occupation, and it perpetuates a kind of divisive thinking. I mean, what can be more divisive than a closed rule that allows no amendments, no substitutes, really nothing to make this a better resolution? It is not enough to say thanks in words to 550 families who have lost someone in Iraq. They want more than thanks and words. Same for the more than 3,000 families of the wounded. If we only give them what they need, this resolution would be more meaningful: more armored Humvees, more language speakers, more support.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished Shuji Maruyama Sensei and honor his contributions to the martial arts in the United States and throughout the world as well as the contributions to his many students in New Jersey, the United States and the world. Mr. Maruyama is the founder of Kokikai Aikido International, based on Aikido, a Japanese martial art developed in the 20th century by Morihei Ueshiba. Aikido combined elements from other martial disciplines to develop an effective defense against multiple attackers. Shuji Maruyama further developed this art and founded his own school, Kokikai Aikido. Used only defensively, this art is characterized by startling grace and power. This martial art presumes it is necessary to be centered, relaxed, to have correct posture and a positive mind. These principals are not only helpful in defending oneself, but are effective tools for enhancing productivity and enjoyment of life. The dual emphasis of this martial art on self-defense and peaceful resolution of conflict has enriched the lives of many of his students in the United States and abroad. Maruyama Sensei has played a key role in introducing this martial art to the United States and supporting its growth and vibrancy. He is a teacher of exceptional skill. Now in his 60s, Maruyama Sensei is acknowledged as one of the world's greatest living martial artists, a model of grace and power, and an extraordinary teacher. He constantly challenges himself calling his students to do the same and encouraging them to continue to grow and improve. As an individual who has touched the lives of countless individuals, nationally and internationally, Shuji Maruyama Sensei has enhanced the health and well being of each. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts. I ask my colleagues to join me in giving him this recognition.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, starting on May 1st, 2004, students from across the United States will arrive in Washington, D.C. in order to participate in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, which is an extraordinary civic education program developed to educate American youth about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. By act of Congress, We the People is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and administered by the Center for Civic Education. It is with great pleasure that I announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent the State of New Jersey in this prestigious national event. These bright and dedicated students, through their extensive knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and superb reasoning and speaking skills, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's capital and compete at the national level. I congratulate them, and I am confident that the students of East Brunswick High School will do a fine job of showing the Nation the very best that New Jersey has to offer. Mr. Speaker, over a 3-day period, the We the People national Final Competition will test the abilities of the students in hearings, which are modeled after those actually held in the U.S. Congress. Through the We the People program, students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of constitutional scholars, judges, lawyers, and journalists, while they evaluate, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Testimony will be followed by questions designed to examine the students' knowledge and implementation of constitutional concepts, as well as their ability to apply that knowledge. This is an opportunity of a lifetime for these students to receive proper recognition for their hard work. We the People has been shown to be a very effective measure in combating the important problems of apathy and cynicism in our Nation's youth. I can think of no better way of stimulating interest in government than total immersion in it. Nowhere else can these students learn more about their government than here in our Nation's capital. Many independent evaluations have validated the effectiveness of the program's ability to impress a positive attitude upon students about civic matters. I ask my colleagues to join me in sending best wishes to all the participants at the We the People national finals, as well as in all their future endeavors, and applaud their achievement. Programs like We the People keep the thirst for knowledge alive in our youth. Our democracy is only as effective as those who choose to take part in it, and We the People will ensure that generations to come will make that choice. Our Nation should be proud that they are dedicated to learning and advocating the fundamental ideals and principles that define us as Americans and bind us together as a Nation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of this years Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D) Mary P. Oenslager Scholastic Achievement Award winners, Sarah Swords, who I am proud to say attended Princeton University in my district. The award is presented annually to college seniors who are blind and who have demonstrated leadership, scholarship, enterprise, and service to others. Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic is a non-profit organization based in Princeton, which has as its sole mission opening the pages of books to all people who cannot read standard print because of visual, perceptual or other physical disability. Mr. Speaker, over the years RFB&D has worked hard to live up to the philosophy of its founder, Anne T. Macdonald, who believed strongly that ``education is a right, not a privilege.'' Currently Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic has almost 240,000 titles available to its members worldwide. I commend Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic on the wonderful work they do, and I am so honored that they are located within my district. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege today to congratulate Sarah Swords one of the 2003 Mary P. Oenslager Scholastic Achievement Award winners. Having lost her sight when she was in the sixth grade due to a serious illness, Sara was fortunate enough to join Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. With the audiotapes RFB&D provided to her, Sarah was finally able to enjoy reading for the first time. ``At last, I could read all the books I had always wanted to read'' she recalls. ``All the classics, novels, poetry and even magazines. I ordered a plethora of literature and have kept right on reading countless books.'' Sarah entered Princeton University in 1999 after finishing first in her class at Stoneman Douglas High School. During her time at Princeton University, Sarah was a member of student government, served as vice president of Delta Delta Delta Sorority, volunteered at the University Crisis Ministry, and helped out at the Trenton Animal Shelter. Sarah also worked as an advocate and speaker for disability rights for the Nassau Club, Princeton Alumni Organization. Mr. Speaker, Sarah is a wonderful person whose talents and leadership have blossomed despite her disability. She is a role model for others in her community and a gifted scholar. I am so glad that through the good work of Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic Sarah Swords will continue to be able to make significant contributions to our country and to the world. She is a wonderful example of why RFB&D motto, that ``education is a right, not a privilege,'' is an essential truth. Again Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Sarah Swords upon being selected as one of the 2003 Mary P. Oenslager Scholastic Achievement Award winners and I wish her the best in all that the future holds for her.