Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor, recognizing the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives, and supporting National Chemistry Week. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has been very helpful as an original cosponsor of this bill and helped move it forward. He and I do this as the two physicists in Congress, with no suggestion of irony that we physicists would be sponsoring National Chemistry Week. Finally, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for cosponsoring the bill and for their support, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) himself being a research-trained chemist. Indeed, chemistry is not something that occurs just in the laboratory, it is everywhere, and this resolution is intended to emphasize that point, the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives. Today's scientists are working to understand global climate change and to develop cleaner energy sources. Our cars have more computing power than the Apollo spacecraft. In many ways, science permeates our lives, and we certainly should do all we can to recognize that and see that youngsters, as well as oldsters, integrate their understanding of science in their lives. Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, major steps were taken in the United States to improve the resources going into science. The goal was to produce a superior technical workforce so that we would be second to none in engineering and science. There was increased funding for school laboratories, revision of math and science curricula and new university scholarships for future scientists. Indeed, this initiative produced a generation of scientists and engineers who have contributed greatly to our economic and technical accomplishments and to the quality of life of people around the world. I was a product of that revolution. Today, as a policy maker, I see the shortcomings of our earlier revolution in science and mathematics education. Too often the push for improving public competence in science and mathematics is justified on the grounds of economics, national security, and an informed citizenry. There is no question that these are vitally important reasons, but we should not forget the reason of personal well-being. Understanding sciences like chemistry brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives. They teach us that the world is intelligible and not capricious. They give us the skills for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself. In setting up the science programs following the launch of Sputnik, we focused on developing scientists and engineers and tend to have left behind the other 80 or 90 percent of our society who should understand science, should integrate it into their lives, even if they are not to become professional scientists. That is why I am proud to see this House recognizing in this legislation the importance of chemistry and the goals and the ideals of National Chemistry Week. I thank the Speaker for bringing this resolution to the floor. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for yielding me the time to speak.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 378 and second many of the remarks of my colleague from California. Prepaid tuition plans that have been set up by States have not provided options for students seeking to go to private universities. These plans typically allow a contributing individual to receive a guarantee that their tuition will be paid when they attend a public university in their State. This resolution before us identifies a plan that now provides students seeking to attend a private university with a prepaid tuition option. Those involved in the development of this plan should be congratulated for pushing to make this a reality. Unfortunately, many existing State prepaid tuition plans have not fared well in our present economy. While unemployment has risen, the Bush administration has forced the reduction of options students and families have to pay for college. Twenty States have set up prepaid tuition plans but nearly all of them are in trouble. Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and Colorado have all suspended their plans. States are shutting the doors on these plans because the failed Bush economy has driven up college costs and reduced their investment options to essentially nothing. In discussing the issue of how students and families pay for college, we cannot ignore the point raised by the gentleman from California, referring to his proposal to institute Federal price controls on college tuition. It has some immediate appeal until you think about it. This proposal would bar universities who have seen their budgets cut due to the sour economy from receiving Federal aid, including work- study opportunities for needy students. In other words, we would cut funds to them until they shape up. Worse yet, Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions would be barred from receiving institutional aid or other aid. This loss of aid would hamper the mission of those institutions and would remove the opportunities for postsecondary education for some of our neediest students. This proposal would also have serious unintended consequences. Colleges that are forced to cap their tuition increases will simply decrease the amount of need-based grant aid. This will result in students experiencing perhaps lower tuition levels but higher out-of- pocket costs. In addition, as labor and health care costs increase, institutions will be forced to sacrifice quality. Clearly, that is not in the public interest. This will be done through the hiring of adjunct professors rather than maintaining, for example, seasoned tenured faculty. Is this the cost-control measure we want our universities to implement? Rather than creating new problems to solve an existing one, Congress should be considering what is the appropriate response to rising tuition costs. We should provide incentives to colleges and universities to hold down costs. The current Federal system of higher education financing does not incentivize schools to hold down their level of tuition increases. The Higher Education Act should not punish students and institutions through heavy-handed Federal price controls. Price controls rarely work. Rather, institutions should hold down tuition costs while increasing need-based grant aid, and they should be rewarded. In addition, States should be required to maintain their level of effort on higher education spending. In years in which Congress increases student aid, those increases should benefit students, not be gobbled up by the need to balance State budgets. The cost of higher education is a complicated one. It is an important one. It is in the national interest to make college affordable and available for all qualified students. This resolution before us today points to a good way to manage the rising costs of college tuition. However, the other proposal advanced by the gentleman from California would be the wrong way to go. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my support for the resolution we are presently considering. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just reply to my colleague from California that in describing his experience with price controls, his personal experience, I think he made a very good case against his proposal, and I think made it clear that the colleges and universities that are in the tightest financial straits, such as Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions, those with a large number of work-study students, would be the ones that would be hurt most by that proposal. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could show some pictures of my grandchildren. I commend the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from California for advancing this legislation. Anything that will improve the accessibility and affordability of college for qualified American students is to be encouraged. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 3232, a bill to reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs. While I am glad to see that these programs will not expire, I am concerned about making progress toward a full 5-year reauthorization, and I know the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) intends to see that we have a good reauthorization, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and the rest of the committee in a bipartisan way. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss what I see are some issues that must be addressed in any new reauthorization. Ensuring healthy children is a worthwhile investment in the future of millions of children and in the future of our country's economic well-being. And as has been discussed by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), there are children in America that go hungry during the school day and others who battle illness caused by poor nutrition. The documentary evidence is clear, and we do not need to review it here; it coincides with common sense: School child nutrition programs help children learn. Meal programs offered in schools and child care settings and after school and summer programs and through WIC offer an ideal way to address child health issues directly, and to build healthful eating habits. When we do get a 5-year reauthorization, we should require local education authorities to establish a school nutrition policy, I would suggest by July of 2005, that, at a minimum, gives the school food director operational responsibility for foods sold on campus. We should request that the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences recommend to the Secretary nutritional standards for school foods. The Food and Nutrition Service should be required to place a greater emphasis on fruits and vegetables in the commodities programs and school meals. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a reauthorization that expands the current fruit and vegetable pilot programs so they reach more students. We must authorize grants to nonprofits and local school districts for farm-to-cafeteria projects which include nutritional education activities, which incorporate the participation of school children in farm and agricultural education projects. In addition, we must eliminate the reduced price category of meals to allow children and families up to 185 percent of poverty to receive a free meal. The children that are designated in this reduced-price category are really between a rock and a hard place when it comes to eating at school. These are children that are both hungry and in many cases embarrassed because their parents are often not able to send the money to school to pay for their meals. It would be better if this category were removed and all children eligible would be treated the same in the nutrition programs. Mr. Speaker, as we reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, I hope my concerns are addressed and we can ensure healthy meals for our children in school; and with that, I do support H.R. 3232.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 279 to recognize the importance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Fellowship Program. For 30 years, the fellowship program has brought together Members of Congress with leading scientific practitioners and scholars in a variety of scientific fields. And this has provided a level of scientific expertise not otherwise found on most congressional staffs, and it presents the congressional fellows with an intimate role in the process of decision-making in public policy. It is hard to find an issue before this body that does not have significant scientific and technological components, and yet those components often get short-shrifted. I was an AAAS Fellow 20 years ago, in fact, the only alumnus of that program yet to serve in this body, although I am sure that there are some others on the way. I was very fortunate to take part in that program, and I witnessed firsthand the important role that scientific expertise can bring to policy decisions. Since I have been a Member of Congress for the past 5 years, I have welcomed AAAS Fellows into my staff and fully integrated them into my staff because of the wealth of knowledge they provide and their ability to pose questions. Of course, that is the essence of science, to be able to pose questions. I have benefited from their aptitude, their ability and their energy; and I will, as long as I serve in this body, continue to recruit these motivated and high-qualified experts and do everything I can to make this program a success. It has, in many ways, benefited America. Let me mention a few of the Fellows who have served with me. Joan Rothenberg joined my staff and shared her expertise on food technology and was integral in developing legislation to provide the public with scientifically based information on biotechnology. Katy Makeig provided my staff with technical expertise on geology and energy and research and development. At the time our Nation was struggling with the anthrax attacks, microbiologist Jill Harper worked on my staff on critical issues of bioterrorism and health and homeland security. Jeffrey Haeni helped to establish here the Congressional Caucus on Research and Development which I think will prove to be an important part of this body. But it is not so much the specific expertise that these Fellows and that other science Fellows bring; it is the level of comfort with science and technology, the familiarity with science and technology that they bring. Members of Congress, let me just say, are generally not loath to talk about subjects in which they are not well trained, except in science. My colleagues and I will hold forth on economics or international relations or any number of other things; but when it comes to science, they say, whoa, that is not for me. I am not a scientist. And as a result, many of the aspects of science, many of the aspects of the policy questions before us that involve science and technology do not get the attention they should. That is why this congressional Fellows program, this AAAS science program is so important. It is in many offices the only scientific expertise that is provided. This technical expertise is very valuable to Congress; and it allows not only these Fellows to bring scientific expertise here; it allows them to carry political expertise back to their professions. So as AAAS celebrates 30 years in the Congressional Fellowship Program, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me, to join the sponsor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), in recognizing the notable contributions provided by these Fellows, the political expertise that they take back to their professions that enriches our country in so many ways, and to applaud the sponsoring societies for providing the support for these Fellows. It truly is a public service. The AAAS seeks ``to advance science and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people.'' The Congressional Fellowship Program carries that mission beyond the walls of academic institutions and research laboratories and into the legislative process.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3076, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act. The bill authorizes a total of $120 million for Title VII graduate education programs, including Javits Fellowships, Graduate Assistance in areas of National Need, Thurgood Marshall Legal Education Opportunities and the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education programs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Boehner for his work on this bill and for accepting my amendment in committee. Under the graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program, the Higher education Act provides grants to colleges and universities to address subject areas where America doesn't have enough people with advanced degrees--including education, where new teachers are trained. My amendment would require that any schools of education that apply for GAANN grants collaborate with a department, program, or unit in science, math, or other appropriate content area to assure a successful combination of training in both teaching and relevant content. This should go almost without comment. Most graduate schools already do this. With the enactment of the historic No Child Left Behind Act, Congress committed itself to ensuring that every student would have the opportunity to improve academically, to attend a safe school in a challenging and nurturing classroom environment, and to have a chance for real scholastic success. Critical to achieving these goals is having highly qualified teachers in every classroom--teachers who are not only versed in general teaching skills, but who also have expertise in the subject matter they teach. This is because when teachers pursue a graduate degree in education, they often focus on education theory and policy, rather than combining such a curriculum with substantive research in a particular subject area like math, science, or literature. If we hope to achieve the goals of No Child Left Behind, we must ensure that the teachers in our children's classrooms are indeed ``highly qualified,'' which should include expertise in the subject matter they teach. That is why I offered, and the committee accepted, an amendment that will reaffirm our commitment to improving teacher quality so that all of our schools can meet the standards of No Child Left Behind. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his support of my amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. I rise today to join every Member of this Chamber in supporting the American men and women serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. We are indebted to their service, to their courage, to what they do to preserve the American Dream and freedom. However, let us not confuse support for our troops with support for any half-baked plan, or lack of a plan, for securing our troops and rebuilding Iraq. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that our shared patriotism somehow absolves us, Members of Congress, from the responsibility to stand up and criticize a flawed policy. On September 7, President Bush addressed the Nation and called upon this body to pass $87 billion in supplemental appropriations. Within minutes after the President's address and every day since, my constituents have been telling me that they are alarmed by this request. Some tell me that $1,000 per family is a lot of money when they think the President is just throwing money at a problem without having a plan to fix it. Some tell me that we should be spending the money to address obligations here at home, like paying for the adequate health care for our veterans from previous wars, as well as the veterans from this war. Others tell me that the President should not ask Congress for more money until he secures more international support, or that we should not have to bear the cost alone. Some tell me that when the government is borrowing money to give tax cuts to the wealthy, we should not be borrowing this $87 billion from our children. And like my constituents, I have all of these reservations and more. I had hoped the President would send Congress a detailed, long-term plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. I had hoped the President would come with a plan for help from our allies. He has failed to do that. I would support the Obey substitute if it were allowed, but without significant changes, I cannot support the President's request at this time. I had hoped that by now the President would have secured the significant financial support of our allies. I had hoped that by now thousands of our men and women serving in Iraq would see international troops coming to relieve them so that some of them might return home. Instead, the President has sent his request to Congress before developing a clear plan for reconstruction. He has sent his request before he has secured hardly any international financial support. And he has sent his request before he has convinced our allies to provide multinational forces to internationalize the troop presence in Iraq. In effect, he is asking the American people to subsidize his failed diplomacy and poor post-war planning. Nevertheless, a Member of Congress should not vote no on this request out of spite. I believe that Congress can and should pass a supplemental bill that will adequately support our troops in Iraq. The President has committed us to helping to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and we must live up to that commitment. However, we cannot blindly approve whatever the President requests, especially when his request is not well thought-out and when it includes wasteful spending. There are two parts to this $87 billion request. About two-thirds is to support military operations and our troops, while the other third is for reconstruction. There are serious problems with both. First, the military portion gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to reprogram almost $40 billion. In other words, the President is so unsure of what programs need support that he has given the Secretary the power to change how $40 billion worth of this bill will be spent. Forty billion dollars is a large petty cash fund. Why don't we just write the Secretary a personal check and send him on his way? There are problems with the reconstruction portion of the bill, too. Imagine; the bill calls for $900,000,000 to import oil to Iraq. We spend money we don't have so that we can import oil to the country with the world's second largest oil reserves. I am pleased that my colleague Rep. David Obey and the other members of the Appropriations Committee were able to eliminate some of the $1.7 billion worth of the most wasteful portions of the President's request, including hundreds of millions of dollars to build luxury prisons in Iraq, hundreds of millions to buy state-of-the-art garbage trucks, and millions to send Iraqis to business school. I am also pleased that they were able to guarantee that the Pentagon will have no flexibility when it comes to procuring bulletproof body armor and other critical need safety equipment for our troops. We must keep our troops safe. Unfortunately, these changes only scratch the surface of what is necessary to fix this request. How can Americans be asked to spend a billion dollars to import oil into one of the largest oil producing countries in the world? Another amendment would make sure that this Administration is adopting competitive practices when awarding contracts to companies that are hired to help with Iraq's construction. Still, another would invest in making sure we have trained linguists who can speak the languages employed by terrorists. I also would vote for the Obey substitute, if the Chair would allow a vote. It would help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq by eliminating the tax cut currently enjoyed by the top one percent of Americans. We cannot afford to go any deeper into debt that this Administration has taken us and we cannot saddle middle class Americans with a financial burden that they cannot afford and should not be asked to bear. A year ago I stood here on the House floor and I voted against the resolution authorizing the President to launch a unilateral, preventive war against Iraq. At the time, I defended my vote, arguing that it was ``at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest,'' for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. Today, our troops are in Iraq and we have made a commitment as a nation to make sure they complete their mission. But as I stand here again, I cannot help but ask whether voting for this $87 billion request right now is at the least premature, and most likely, contrary to our national interest.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman over dramatizes. It is not as if there are no refineries operating at all. It is not as if there is no opportunity to transport refined products around the country. Sure, there are shortages. Of course, the country is disrupted. But ask the American people if they think it is appropriate to take $900 million, when we are struggling each year to fund the LIHEAP program here, when we are struggling each year to fund the food programs for Americans, when we are struggling each year to provide basics for Americans, to, yes, take coals to Newcastle. It just seems to me that oil to Iraq says it all. I challenge the gentleman to go home to his constituents and say, among other things that I did last week in Congress, I voted $900 million of your money to purchase oil, petroleum products, to take to the country that has the second largest oil reserves in the world. I challenge the gentleman to do that, and I will be interested to hear the reports from back home. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with this legislation; the lack of planning to turn the rebuilding over to Iraqis, the lack of planning to involve other countries, the lack of attention to domestic concerns, such as the health care for our veterans, and the flexibility that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just spoke about that certainly betray a lack of planning in the sense that the Pentagon has to ask for total flexibility in how they might use the money in the future. But I would like to talk about one specific thing that is wrong with this bill. When I was growing up, we had a phrase called ``taking coals to Newcastle.'' It meant pointless activity, redundant activity. The chairman might call it taking oranges to Florida, or the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) might call it taking potatoes to Idaho, or the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) might call it taking snow to Alaska. This legislation before us today creates a new unbelievable expression for America, taking oil to Iraq. My amendment would eliminate the $900 million of taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, that would be used to import petroleum to Iraq. Think about it. Petroleum to Iraq. Mr. Chairman, why are we dunning our taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars to import petroleum products into the country which has the second greatest oil reserves in the world? Yes, I know the gentleman from Arizona or others will say, well, the pipelines break or the refineries are not highly efficient, and others, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will point out that this is gouging, that Halliburton Corporation is engaged in blatant price gouging. But I want to put all that aside and just ask, as my constituents have been asking me, does it pass the smell test for us to spend taxpayer money to import oil to Iraq? I ask for support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). And to think that the gentleman got in some hot water not too many months ago for saying that, well, he might question the veracity of some in the administration who were talking about the facts leading us to war. I think the American people have come to see that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) knew what he was talking about. But I would like to talk about another subject: voting, the single most important act of a democratic republic. Now, citizens in my State of New Jersey tell me they want voting techniques, technologies that are reliable, accessible, and verifiable. And they are concerned that in the stampede to replace the unreliable butterfly and punch card ballots, that we may be replacing one unreliable voting technology with another. Now, consider electronic machines like, for example, touch-screen machines. They are convenient, they are accessible, they are fast and efficient. In many ways, they make good voting machines. They report the election results promptly and can reduce clerical errors and errors in addition. And certainly Members of Congress, I for one, have encountered in an election where the county clerk makes errors of addition that, in some cases, take hours and, in other cases, days to uncover. But these electronic machines are good, except that they are inherently unverifiable. Voters ask me, now, after I vote on an electronic machine, how will I know that back there in the electronics, back in the ether, back in cyberspace, the vote was recorded as I intended. The answer is, they do not know. They cannot know. Because of software or hardware errors, the votes might have been misrecorded. Innocent, accidental errors, or malicious, intentional, hacking errors. The real problem is that there is no way for the voter to verify the reliability of the electronic count. Voters are plenty skeptical these days, and we cannot afford to have voters more skeptical about the process that they are supposed to own. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation under which each voter gets to see a printed record of his or her vote to verify that the vote is recorded as the voter intended and that the printed record becomes the vote of record. Now, this gives all the convenience, accessibility, and reliability of the electronic voting machines. And, it gives the added element of verifiability, of verification that belongs to each voter, as it should.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct, and I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her leadership on this issue. The motion addresses two rather disturbing aspects of H.R. 1, the troublesome Medicare legislation passed earlier this year. The first problem with this bill is, of course, it is, as so many things this year, a loss of revenue so that benefits can be given to people who need the benefits least. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the health savings accounts would cost the Federal Government $174 billion over 10 years. These health savings accounts are a way of saying to the American people they are on their own. The beauty of Medicare and its sister program, Social Security, is we are all in it together. We all know we are all in it together. But the message that the majority is sending here is you are on your own. You can save for these expenses that you will incur, you can save for these prescriptions that you will need, you can save and you will be in good shape. I can hear the President saying to the Vice President, It worked for you, did it not, Dick? Yes, George, it worked for me. That is the message that they are giving to the American people, that you are on your own and you will be okay. At the end of the line of this is channeling all beneficiaries into private insurance. As the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said, for those who think that we are trying to change Medicare as we know it, the answer is, I certainly hope so. Yes, that is what the chairman said. This is a fundamental change in Medicare. Now, there are millions of Americans out there who are saying all this debate about prescription medicine under Medicare does not really affect me. They may not like turning people out on their own like this, but we can hear these millions of Americans saying thank goodness that my former employer has given me a good retirement package and I have prescription drug coverage. In fact, in New Jersey where there are 1.2 million Medicare beneficiaries, of these 434,000 have employer- sponsored coverage. It sounds good, but unfortunately we have got bad news for those people who think that they are covered. The Congressional Budget Office says perhaps one-third of employers could drop retiree coverage under the new bill, one-third. Well, in New Jersey it might be any of 134,000 beneficiaries who would lose their employer-sponsored coverage under H.R. 1. This certainly is an unpleasant surprise for many seniors. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) has pointed out that the money set aside in H.R. 1 for the health savings accounts could be much better spent, addressing this second failing of the legislation, its effect on retiree prescription drug coverage, a fine idea, worthy of Members' support. I think we can create this fix by passing the motion to instruct of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). I will vote for it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for the time. I rise today to voice my strong support to House Resolution 234, introduced in a bipartisan way by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). House Resolution 234 condemns bigotry and violence against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South Asian Americans, and Sikh Americans at a time when Americans in these communities are facing unprecedented levels of discrimination and abuse. We cannot stand by and allow the ignorance of a few to overcome the tradition of tolerance in this Nation of Nations. I urge my colleagues to vote unanimously for this important resolution and, in so doing, send a clear and bipartisan message to all Americans that Congress will not accept, condone, or ignore acts of hatred. Although the tragic events of September 11, 2001, united most Americans, some misguided individuals in our society have taken their anger and directed it at their neighbors because they look different or subscribe to a different religion. We Americans have struggled throughout our history to purge ourselves of crippling stereotypes that spread a cloud of ignorance and despair on our otherwise great society. Members of this Congress and of the larger American community fought valiantly in the 1960s to end legal racial discrimination against African Americans. We have come a long way since the days of sanctioned racism, but we still have miles to go to eradicate the vestiges of bigotry that from time to time consume the ignorant among us. In my home State of New Jersey, many of my constituents of Asian descent, many of Muslim religion or Sikh religion have suffered acts of violence simply due to their religion or the color of their skin. One of the most tragic cases involved the murder 4 days after September 11, 2001, of Waqar Hasan who was shot to death in his convenience store by a man who said he did it to retaliate against ``Arab Americans or whatever you want to call them.'' Hasan was a Pakistani immigrant who was murdered for no other reason than that he was a Muslim with a Middle Eastern face. When Mr. Hasan was murdered, the visas and applications for permanent residency of his wife and four daughters died with him. After building lives in America for 9 years, the Hasan family has gone from being one step away from permanent residency to one step away from deportation. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation, H.R. 867, to prevent the deportation of Waqar's wife and four daughters, who without this would be forced to leave America. I have been working closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for their bipartisan support of the Hasan family. I look forward to continue to work with them in the coming weeks to pass H.R. 867. Today, Congress can take a step to help the Hasan family and immigrant families like them and any other families who are victims of racism and bigotry by passing House Resolution 234. We will be making a promise to the American people and all who seek a new life of opportunity on our shores that here in America we treat each other with dignity and respect.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, this so-called partial-birth abortion ban. It continues a troubling tendency that we have seen over the last few years for Congress to try to practice medicine. Every day, patients make medical treatment decisions that are difficult, that are unpleasant, that are even dangerous and matters of life and death. Surely pregnant women deserve the same opportunities to decide with their doctors the best course of treatment. However, this bill denies women such opportunities and restricts their ability to access safe and appropriate health care. Furthermore, doctors who determine that the banned procedure is the most appropriate treatment will be subject to criminal sanctions simply for providing their patients with the best medical care. All of us like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and that is why I support education and prevention programs to help families avoid unwanted pregnancies. But the question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any woman can face. Reproductive health care is a very personal, ethical, and medical matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the government. Proponents of this bill allege that it will protect life. In reality, it will jeopardize the health of women across this nation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be rejected.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the many Cypriot Americans in New Jersey I rise today to honor the 43d anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Cyprus. Cyprus became an independent Republic in 1960 after 80 years of British colonial rule and hundreds of years under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire. Despite a series of tragic events during the past four decades, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus remains committed to the core principles enshrined in the Constitution of Cyprus guaranteeing the basic rights and freedoms of the people of Cyprus--Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Cypriots from all ethnic and religious communities. This year, Cyprus's Independence Day arrives at a time of great hope for all the people of Cyprus. Since the last celebration of Cyprus Independence Day, Cyprus has experienced events of major historic import--most notably the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the European Union in April of this year. Cyprus is now on target to join the EU in May 2004 and that is no small achievement for a nation that has endured such a long list of tragedies. As in past years, however, the continued de facto division of the island nation clouds the commemoration of its Independence Day. Thirty- seven percent of the Republic's territory continues to be occupied by Turkish military forces in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international law. While the Cyprus problem continues to elude a final, just, and peaceful solution, never before in the 29 years since Turkish forces split the island in two, have Cypriots been so close to a settlement. And yet they are so far away. The last year has been fraught with opportunities lost--many of us here in Congress thought that the Copenhagen Summit last winter offered a unique opportunity for Greek and Turkish Cypriots to finally resolve their differences. A new Turkish leadership in Ankara looked poised to make history and then didn't. We had hope. The plan put forth by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan continued to gain momentum. Thousands of Turkish Cypriots were protesting in the streets against their leader Rauf Denktash calling on him to accept the Annan plan. There was anticipation that referenda would occur this past spring and finally liberate Cypriots from the oppressive division of their island. And then as has often happened in the history of Cyprus an opportunity was lost. Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, would not take the Annan plan to his people for a referendum. Denktash abandoned the Annan plan. And a frustrated U.N. closed up shop and went home. And then something wonderful happened. Mr. Denktash unilaterally opened up the borders. Some on Cyprus and in Congress have looked upon this action with suspicion, but I don't think anyone can dispute that the results have been overwhelming positive for the Cypriot people. There are a lot of experts with different opinions on why Mr. Denktash did what he did, but one thing is for certain. Cypriots have begun talking to Cypriots again. An artificial line has been eliminated and I don't think there's any turning back. One of my constituents, Theo Hadjitheodosiou from Holmdale, New Jersey, was born in Cyprus. He is Greek Cypriot and recently returned to Cyprus to cross the Green Line to see one of the homes where some of his family used to live before the 1974 invasion. He said it was nice to go, but that he remained saddened by the continued occupation by Turkish forces. Can you imagine having to show your passport to go from Trenton to Pennsylvania? That's what it's like. The division has been particularly hard on the Turkish Cypriots, he said. Like many other Cypriots, Theo sees the opening of the border as only a first step on the road toward a settlement. I am hopeful that the renewed human contact between Greek and Turkish Cypriots will accelerate the political process. Eventually, trust will be rebuilt among people. And then the enemies of peace will have no choice but to let go of their stubborn, outdated positions to make way for a new generation that will embrace a peaceful future--a future of one Cyprus, made up of Turkish and Greek Cypriots--in which all citizens are not only Cypriot, but more importantly, European. I will continue to do what I can in Congress to support a Cyprus solution based on the Annan plan. I will continue to urge the Bush administration to convince the Turks in Ankara that a solution in Cyprus will provide the gateway to Turkey's own goals of a European future. As elections approach in the Turkish-occupied area, I will ask the administration to make it clear to Ankara not to interfere. Polls recently conducted on Cyprus indicate that if free and fair elections were held in the North, the Turkish Cypriots would elect a new, pro- settlement leadership. A new Turkish Cypriot leadership that represents the aspirations of a majority of Turkish Cypriots would be a welcome development and would probably lead to the renewal of settlement negotiations. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on Cyprus Independence Day to celebrate the progress that Cyprus continues to make as an incoming member state of the European Union, as a vibrant democracy with a robust market economy, and as an increasingly important partner of the United States. And I hope, as I do each year, that the people of Cyprus will soon enjoy the benefits of a peaceful settlement.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and neighbor from New Jersey for highlighting this issue and all the good work he does, and let me just pick up on the last point he was making about whether these child tax credit benefits should go to families that, in the words of some in this Chamber, do not pay taxes. I would think that it would be embarrassing to the authors of the rule that resulted in this bill that 250,000 children of active duty servicemen and -women would not be eligible for this. We have heard this before, and at risk of repeating some of what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has said, I really want to emphasize this. I mean, the Children's Defense Fund and others point out that hundreds of thousands of children of teachers, nurses, farmers would be left behind. It really gets at the heart of what these tax cuts are. They are not to stimulate the economy. They are not to inject some fairness in a very complicated tax code. Quite simply, they are to provide some benefits to the upper-income segments of American society in some misguided hope that will trickle down to benefit the families of teachers and nurses and farmers and servicemen and -women. It does not work that way. 178,000 children of farming families, 567,000 children of nurses or hospital orderlies, 337,000 children of teachers are calculated to be left out in this child tax credit. The rationale given by the leaders on the other side of the aisle for preventing these families from receiving the expanded child tax credit was that the total cost of the tax legislation could not exceed $350 billion over 10 years. Adjustments had to be made. Adjustments had to be made. So these nurses, orderlies, servicemen and -women, farmers, teachers are categorized as adjustments or, more to the point, their children are somehow less worthy and adjusted out of this. Other tax analysts have noted that the cost of the tax credit provision of what we are talking about here with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and this child tax correction, the cost of this correction is less than 3 percent of the total cost of the dividend and capital gains provisions. It did not take much of an adjustment to fix this, but I guess adjustments had to be made. At a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet, at a time when if we really want to stimulate the economy we would put money in the hands of people who need it most and, therefore, would spend it the quickest, at a time when families of Reservists and other military personnel are facing financial difficulty, at a time when jobs continue to be lost throughout the country at an alarming rate, what could be more important than helping America's families by putting a few extra dollars in their pockets? I thank my colleague from the neighboring district in New Jersey for yielding me the time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the Do-Not-Call Registry was crafted as a balance between the rights of businesses to market their products and the right of consumers to avoid unnecessary harassment. Today, due to a judicial decision, we are back here on the House floor to reaffirm the validity of the registry. Telemarketers have, like everyone else in this country, the right to free speech. They have the right to say what they want. What they don't have is the right to force Americans to listen to their sales pitches. Americans, on the other hand, should have the right to a little peace and quiet. They should have the right to not have to get unwanted advertising pitches over the phone during dinnertime. Telemarketers already have the tools they need to exercise their right to free speech--they have autodialing computers, prerecorded messages, phone registries, and legions of operators. In creating the Do-Not-Call Registry, the FTC was merely trying to provide consumers with the power to truly exercise this right. The Do-Not-Call Registry is just one simple, effective tool that will give consumers the ability to exercise their right to a little peace and quiet. Unfortunately, Judge Lee R. West of the Western District of Oklahoma recently ruled that Congress did not give the FTC explicit authority to create the do-not-call list. Of course, Judge West has the right to make that ruling, if he thinks that is the correct interpretation of the law. Congress then has the responsibility to clarify that it has indeed given the FTC authority to protect consumers by creating the registry, as we are doing today. While I strongly support the continued implementation of the Do-Not- Call Registry, I should mention that the FTC left some loopholes. If you've bought, leased, or rented something from a company in the past 18 months, they can still call you until you say, ``Stop.'' They can also call you if you've applied or inquired with them over the past three months--even something as mundane as asking for a store's hours. Telemarketers have jumped to these loopholes, showing the lengths that many of them will go to in order to call people during dinnertime with unwanted ads. The FTC should revisit its rules and see if these loopholes can be closed. Even still, it's critical that we reaffirm the validity of the do- not-call list. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, and all the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for bringing this clarifying legislation to the floor. I'm sure my constituents will be pleased to see this body reacting so quickly. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill so it can be signed into law and we can avoid delaying implementation of the do-not-call list.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Gary T. Puma, the president and chief executive officer of Presbyterian Homes and Services of Princeton for his more than twenty-five years of service to New Jersey's senior citizens and their families. Mr. Puma's dedication to meeting the needs of the elderly began when he was an undergraduate at John Fisher College, where he was active in creating a gerontology department. His dream of helping the elderly led him to service on the N.J. State Department of Health and Senior Service--Assisted Living Task Force and the N.J. Housing Mortgage and Finance Authority--Assisted Living Financing Task Force. His expertise has also resulted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives and in assisting with the drafting of affordable housing regulations for New Jersey. Mr. Puma's own Italian immigrant grandparents were his inspiration. Knowing how hard they worked to create a good life for his family here in America gave him a life-long determination to help other older people at a time when they were in need and deserved first-rate housing and care. Because of his grandparents, Mr. Puma has worked tirelessly to bring to life his vision of an organization with a wide spectrum of care and housing options to assist as many seniors as possible. Mr. Puma has refused to accept anything less than excellence in every aspect of the Presbyterian Homes and Services. Under his guidance, Presbyterian Homes and Services received the 1996 New Jersey Governor's Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing. Wanting to help seniors age in place at home, Mr. Puma conceived of and championed the State's first subsidized assisted living program for seniors who lived in affordable housing. This innovative program has served as a model for other communities in New Jersey and throughout the country, and it has been recognized by AARP and the Assisted Living Federation of America. As an inspiration to individuals in New Jersey and throughout the country, Gary T. Puma has contributed significantly to the quality of life of thousands of senior citizens regardless of their income or denomination. He has earned our heartfelt appreciation for his efforts. Please join me in congratulating him for his many years of service.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Speaker, as an educator and avid reader, it's always a special pleasure for me to visit a library or a museum. Libraries and museums safeguard our freedom and keep democracy healthy. They preserve the past and offer brighter futures to all of us, and their resources surely benefit every community member. That is why I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act. Libraries are often referred to as the ``People's University.'' It is a fitting name. Libraries provide all of us with free access to a fabulous wealth of information. In this increasingly technology-driven society, they speak directly to what we call the Digital Divide. A recent survey by the Department of Commerce found that our libraries are the number one point of access for those who do not have Internet access at home or at work. Today, 90 percent of public libraries have some kind of Internet connection. Research also shows us that Americans visit libraries 3.5 billion times each year; 1.6 billion items are borrowed annually from public libraries; and research librarians answer 7 million questions every week. Clearly libraries are responding not only to the daunting challenges of the Information Age and to the changing needs of our communities, but they are continuing to serve all of their traditional roles as well. Libraries are also true community centers. They create environments where students can do their homework, townspeople can gather, families can interact, seniors can learn new skills, and job seekers can find advice. They are forums building partnerships, linking with everyone from garden clubs to Head Start programs to extend their reach throughout our communities. Throughout our country, libraries serve as the catalyst for economic revitalization, bringing together our communities civic and social leaders. They provide reading material for people of all ages by sending books into maternity wards, setting up reading stations in pediatrician's offices, developing teen centers, and establishing mobile book carts in nursing homes and senior centers. At my own public library in Princeton, I can see improvements that are traceable to this authorization bill. The library is in the process of constructing a state of the art library security, inventory, and circulation system that will allow library users to automatically check in and check out books. Because of the Museum and Library Services Act, New Jersey residents will gain greater access to the resources available at their local public library. Similarly, our nation's museums serve as community centers that offer people of every age access to our nation's cultural and natural heritage. Museums' special role in public education fixes on their unique capacity to provide the public with an interactive environment in which to better understand our communities, our nation, and our world. From local art museums to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., museums are gathering places for people to meet and spend meaningful time with families and friends. The educational role of museums is at the core of their service to the public. People of all ages and backgrounds come to learn from the collections, exhibits and programs created by museums through their research and scholarship. Museums across the nation provide more than 18 million instructional hours of educational programs, including professional development for our nation's teachers, guided field trips to our students, staff visits to local schools, and traveling exhibits in our communities. Annually, they spend more than $1 billion to share these activities with us. Museums also have forged a deeply-rooted connection to the local communities that have created and cherished them. Americans from all income and education ranges visit museums, and each visit provides a wealth of information about our nation's heritage and our opportunities for the future. Across the country, there are 2.3 million museum visits each, adding up to 865 million visits per year. There are more than 15,000 museums in the United States and 90 percent of counties in America have at least one museum--75% of them considered to be small and 43% located in rural areas. The 12th District of New Jersey is home to the New Jersey State Museum in Trenton, which was recently awarded a Museum Assessment Grant. This grant will provide the museum with technical assistance that will be invaluable in fulfilling its goal to educate the public. The New Jersey State Museum was one of the first state museums founded with this educational mission, and today it is home to a large collection of artifacts detailing archaeological, cultural, and artistic history. For all residents of central New Jersey, this museum offers exciting opportunities to learn about local history, to explore the far reaches of outer space at its planetarium, and to share time with family members at educational workshops. This museum--and the numerous others in the 12th District of New Jersey--enrich the lives of thousands of residents each year. Mr. Speaker, Carl Rowan, a noted journalist, once said, ``The library is the temple of learning, and learning has liberated more people than all the wars in history.'' With the passage of H.R. 13, the Museum and Library Services Act, future generations of Americans can enjoy the rich cultural and educational opportunities available to them through our nation's museums and libraries.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I marvel at the degree of party discipline in the majority and the degree to which they insist on the correctness of their positions. The majority does not want to admit that fighting terrorism requires sacrifice. They do not want to admit that the U.N. can actually help us. They do not want to admit that we may have to go hat in hand to other countries to ask for financial and diplomatic help. They do not want to admit that our leaders did an inadequate job of planning for the post-Saddam occupation and transition to democracy in Iraq. They do not want to admit that exorbitant tax cuts are not stimulating the economy and, in fact, are costing Americans jobs. Some may think it is weakness to admit mistakes, but many Americans instead think it is arrogance and a lack of touch with reality. I ask myself why I would even want to give the majority party advice to do better if, in fact, the electorate is likely to make them pay for their arrogance. But I must say the longer they persist in this denial, the harder it will be for America to correct their course. Maybe the majority party will suffer for their arrogance, but the U.S. will suffer more.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on May 7 of this year, the House debated and passed an important piece of legislation, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 766). During debate of this bill, it became clear that there was a misunderstanding regarding the conclusions of a scholarly study conducted at Rutgers University. The author of that study, which was cited during the debate, has written to me with the request that he be able to clear up the confusion. I am enclosing for the record the attached letter from David Guston, Associate Professor and Director of the Public Policy Program at Rutgers. Professor Guston's letter clarifies the scope and conclusions of his study, and will help us move forward on issues related to nanotechnology in an informed and thoughtful way in the future. Rutgers, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Public Policy Program, New Brunswick, NJ, September 17, 2003. Hon. Rush Holt, Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Representative Holt: I write regarding the debate on the House floor on 7 May on the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 766). It has come to my attention that, in responding to Representative Johnson's proposed amendment to the bill to provide for regularly occuring consensus conferences or citizens' panels, Representative Burgess cited (at CR H3727) ``[a] scholarly review of the Danish-type citizens' panel process convened to study telecommunications and democracy [that] judged the process to be ineffective.'' In later remarks on the amendment, Chairman Boehlert referred to the same ``scholarly study,'' saying that he was told the study ``concluded that not even those engaged in organizing the US citizens' panel thought it had any impact.'' Chairman Boehlert then quoted from the study the following passage (at CR H3727-28): ``The single greatest area of consensus among the respondents was that the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy had no actual impact. No respondent, not even those government members of the steering committee or expert cohort, identified any actual impact.'' I am the author of the study in question (which can be found in pre-published form at http://policy.rutgers.edu/ papers/ and via http://www.loka.org/pages/panel/htm and in peer-reviewed, published from in Science, Technology, & Human Values 24(4):451-82). I believe that these comments indicate real confusion about my findings. I am therefore writing to correct the record and to ensure that no misunderstanding about my study damages efforts to provide public input into the future of nanotechnology R&D. There are three important aspects of my study on the Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy of which you should be aware. First, the study concludes that the citizens' panel had no actual impact on policy decisions because, in large part, it was not designed to. The sentence from the study immediately following the one Chairman Boehlert quotes reads: ``A primary reason for this lack of impact is that having one was not a primary goal of the citizens' panel.'' The organizers of the panel designed it as a proof-of-concept, and they were more interested in understanding how to implement such a panel and in seeing how the experts and lay-citizens would interact than they were in having an actual impact on policy. Although conducting citizens' panels is not quite rocket science, questioning their effectiveness by claiming that this panel did not have an actual impact is like blaming the Gemini program for not going to the Moon: Its designers did not intend it to do so. Second, my study distinguishes between what I call ``actual impact,'' defined as ``a concrete consequence to any authoritative public decision,'' and three other impacts: (1) those on the ``general thinking'' about a problem; (2) those on the ``training of knowledgeable personnel''; and (3) those that result in an ``interaction with lay-knowledge.'' I develop these other measures to evaluate the impact of citizens' panels for two reasons: (1) because--just as with more traditional research--the education of participants is a primary output of citizens' panels; and (2) because even very formal, expert studies such as those conducted by the National Academy of Sciences or by national commissions often fail to have an ``actual impact.'' The comments made in the floor debate by members of both parties emphasize that scientists and lay-citizens need to learn from each other about nanotechnology, and my study finds that such learning can indeed occur in citizens' panels. To question the effectiveness of citizens' panels by pointing to no ``actual impact'' of this pilot panel misses the study's finding of ``tantalizing evidence that many kinds of impacts can be achieved.'' Third--and most importantly--rather than undermining the possibility of providing public input into technical decisions, my research concludes that citizens panels are real opportunities for productive interaction between experts and lay-citizens. My research concludes that future citizens' panels would need better ``connection to non-participants'' and ``higher profile institutional partners'' in order to achieve their potential. If citizens' panels were authorized by H.R. 766 and conducted by NSF and its partner agencies, then they would indeed have the institutional support my research indicates they require to succeed. I hope that the record can be corrected to indicate that my research provides evidence and analysis to support the productive use of citizens' panels under the conditions that H.R. 766 envisions them, rather than providing evidence against their effectiveness. Please let me know if I may be of any assistance on such matters in the future, and I thank you for your work on H.R. 766 and for your attention here. Sincerely, David H. Guston, Associate Professor and Director.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) said it very well, it would be easier for us to deal with this with the $87 billion, with all of the economic problems facing us, if the leadership here and the leadership down the avenue would level with the American people about how this happened. I think that is what the American people ask, is that their leaders level with them and not just go on as we go further into debt have the leadership say and now we need tax cuts more than ever. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for this very useful discussion.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman points out, economists are trying to pull this apart to understand how this perfect storm occurred. This will be the subject of economic studies for years to come, but one thing that is already apparent and will be apparent is this is not something that just happened to America; this was something that was created. It was created by the budget resolutions of 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and the appropriations and the tax bills that fulfilled those budget resolutions.