Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 1, a truly landmark piece of legislation. I think it shows what we as a Congress can accomplish when we are willing to sit down and work together. Along those lines, I would like to heap more praise on the chairman and the gentleman from California, and I think the President deserves a good measure of praise for his constructive role in this, too. The agreement, I am pleased to see, addresses the subject of math and science education, especially the recruitment and professional development of teachers. And if we are going to continue to grow as a Nation, science and math education is critical. I am also pleased that the legislation authorizes increased funding for a number of programs targeted to the neediest and poorest, programs for title I and teacher quality, bilingual and immigrant education. But I do want to raise two items that I am disappointed about. I am disappointed this legislation does not adequately address the Federal Government's share of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In New Jersey, the communities I represent tell me this is one of the biggest challenges they face. Secondly, I am disappointed this legislation does not address the issue of pesticides in our schools and does not include notification of parents and teachers when potentially dangerous chemicals are used around their children. But despite these concerns, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my support for the bill and thank the conferees for work very well done.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Illinois for yielding me this time, and I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 3248, legislation to designate the United States Post Office in Cranbury, in my home district, as the Todd Beamer Post Office. I too want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), as well as the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for allowing this bill to come to the floor; and I thank my colleagues for their eloquent remarks. This is, I think, very appropriate. America has found a hero in Todd Beamer, one of the passengers on hijacked Flight 93. We all mourn the loss of Todd Beamer and the others on that flight; and our hearts and prayers go out to Lisa Beamer, who is here with us in the gallery now, and to their two fine children, whom I have observed, and to all the other families of people on that plane. We hold up the memory of Mr. Beamer as one who represents what is good about America. All of America knows of his reciting the 23rd Psalm, the Lord's Prayer, and his words, ``Let's roll.'' At a time like this, we seek to draw lessons for us Americans who are left behind after September 11. For a couple of centuries observers from around the world, from Alexis de Toqueville to Winston Churchill, have spoken about the marvelous ability of Americans to rise to meet a challenging situation, the ability of individual Americans to step from their ordinary lives to do extraordinary things. You will notice I do not say ordinary Americans, because, in fact, that is the essence of what makes this country. There are no ordinary Americans. There are Americans who will, at one time or another, rise to do extraordinary things. I attended a memorial service for Todd at the church in Plainsboro, New Jersey, where the Beamer family worships. And from the remembrances delivered lovingly by friends and family, I learned a lot about the character of this national hero. He was an outstanding athlete who led and inspired his athletes and who said he always seemed to somehow find a way to come up with a critical run. He was a fine businessman who stood out in a national company. He was an involved and loving father of David, 3 years old, and 1-year-old Andrew, and was looking forward to the upcoming birth of his third child. But especially, especially I learned that he was a man of deep religious faith, a faith that allowed him to look past death to act so courageously on board Flight 93. We believe that the band of passengers who fought the hijackers, Todd's father calls them freedom fighters, saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives that would have been taken if that plane had made its fiery descent into the hijackers' intended target. And it is worth noting that none of those people whose lives were saved know who they are. We will never know. But all Americans can be grateful. Ours is a diverse country, with a rich religious tradition, a very diverse religious tradition. And September 11 was a particularly tough day for Muslims. They find that day hard because there were some people who wanted to say that those were Muslims who hijacked the plane. But good Muslims assure me that no follower of Mohammed would have done that. Because it is written not only in the Judeo-Christian tradition but also in the Koran. In the Talmud it says, ``Whoever saves a single life is honored as though he saved an entire world.'' And in the Koran, ``If anyone saved a life, it would be as though he saved the life of the whole people.'' The memory of the people on board Flight 93 reminds us that this is not the last time that America will need heroes. Andrew and David can grow up knowing that their father acted heroically. They can also see it in the way their mother has borne this hard time. The survival of American ideals, though, beyond the immediate Beamer family, depends day in and day out on ordinary Americans stepping out of their ordinary lives to do extraordinary things, courageous things. It is appropriate, I think, that people will be able to find inspiration as they look at the Federal post office in Cranbury and pause for a moment to reflect on the essence of America, what we can extract from our diversity, and also to reflect on the meaning of religious faith in our lives. It is only fitting that a memorial for Todd be established in Cranbury, where he and his family live. First settled in 1697, the town of Cranbury is one of the oldest towns in New Jersey. It derived its name from the brook on whose banks it had its beginning. Over 80 soldiers from the Revolutionary War are buried in the town. While it today is in close proximity to some of our Nation's largest metropolitan areas, Cranbury retains its unique village character. The opportunity comes to every American to do courageous things. I want to repeat that. To every American. Now, most of us will never have the chance, thank God, to have to face down an armed hijacker. But many will have the opportunity in their neighborhoods or among their friends to face down bigotry, intolerance, or injustice. The memory of people like Todd Beamer helps us meet those challenges. This legislation is one small honor for Todd Beamer and for all the heroes on Flight 93 and elsewhere around the country on September 11. It is not the last time America will need heroes. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, and I also urge that we honor the survivors and families left after the atrocities through appropriate compensation and tax relief. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, complex issues are facing Congress, many in the realm of science and technology. Current events are challenging our traditional understanding of medicine, engineering, science, environment, and telecommunications. Mail decontamination is just one issue where Congress needs better science advice. Thousands of people have been affected by anthrax in our mail-- millions more by the uncertainty and fear it has caused. Congress still has not received mail, severing a vital link to our constituents. Part of the reason for this delay is that there is no precedent for killing anthrax spores. If the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) existed today, we could expect to have already received information about rapid ways to decontaminate our mail. During its 23 years of existence, OTA provided Congress with well-respected, impartial analysis and advice, including valuable reports on terrorism, national security, and communication. If OTA existed today, they would have already completed reports useful to us in making decisions about the current war on terrorism. Congress needs better scientific information. We need unbiased analysis and advice on the impact and use of technologies. We need to understand how technology can be used to hurt us and how we can use it to strengthen and defend our nation. When OTA's funding was eliminated due to government downsizing in 1995, Congress lost a valuable and unique resource. Please join me, along with 55 of my colleagues, in cosponsoring H.R. 2148, bipartisan legislation to reestablish the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Science, for yielding me time, and I also thank my friend from New York for carrying this forward. As a representative of Central New Jersey, including Princeton University, and as a physicist, I could not let this opportunity go by to speak of one of the great Americans. New York likes to claim Joseph Henry. Washington, D.C., likes to claim Joseph Henry. In New Jersey, we really have a soft spot for someone who did much of his scientific research at what was then called the College of New Jersey, Princeton University. Outside of the Princeton Physics Building there are really two statues now; on one side, Joseph Henry; on the other side, Benjamin Franklin. Joseph Henry is a remarkable American story, a self-made scientist, a country boy who made good. He was self-taught. When he was appointed to a professorship at Princeton, he asked whether they knew that he had had no formal education. But they were happy to have him because of his careful mind, and, most important, his careful experimental work. That is what I want to say a word about. He is known for his work with induction. On one side of the Atlantic, Michael Faraday was doing work; on this side of the Atlantic, it was Joseph Henry. Now, induction may sound like an academic fine point of narrow interest, but, in fact, every motor, every transformer, every telephone, every TV broadcast, in fact, all of modern electronics is built on this work on induction. Joseph Henry was the leading American proponent of experimental science. He not only developed the principle on which Morse developed the telegraph; he actually had a wire strung from the basement of Nassau Hall to his home where he could signal by telegraphy to his wife and family, I suppose, when he would be coming home for dinner. He also in inventing electromagnets improvised and at one point realized he needed to insulate the wires so he could have multiple windings around the electromagnet, and he unraveled one of his wife's silk garments so he could braid silk around the wire to provide insulation and make stronger, far stronger, electromagnets than anyone in the world had ever done. But always he was looking at the use of science for the national service, for the national good. He came to national attention and to the attention of Congress when in 1844 he was appointed to a commission to investigate an explosion of a gun on the new USS Princeton on the Potomac River. This was, I guess, the Challenger accident of the day, because a gun exploded and the Secretaries of State and Navy and several Members of Congress were killed. Henry's careful investigation of the cause of that and his efforts to prevent anything like that explosion from ever occurring again brought him to the attention of Congress. So when the word went out to find a director for this new, well-endowed institution where Joseph Smithson had sent a shipload of money to form an institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge, they looked for the best person in America to head it, and Congress hit on Joseph Henry. Madam Speaker, the reason that we want to recognize Joseph Henry is because of what he did not just in his laboratory but to apply science to the public good in this investigation of the explosion, but then in the creation of the National Academy of Sciences, which went on and has continued to this day to use science in the national interest, and for what he did in empirical science. With all the talk that we have nowadays of the need for science education in the schools, it is not so much that students can do calculations with Henrys and Farads and units of force and voltage and so forth but, rather, so that they learn the idea of empirical science, a way of thinking that is built on evidence, where evidence rules. Joseph Henry was the leading American in developing this kind of empirical thinking that serves us so well today. That is why I commend the students in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) for bringing Joseph Henry to the attention of Americans today, and I am delighted to join my friend in elevating the name of Joseph Henry through this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ewing Township, New Jersey, Mayor Al Bridges upon his retirement. Mayor Bridges has served our community as an elected official for more than a quarter of a century. Having first been appointed to the Ewing Township Planning Board in 1983, Mayor Bridges became its Chairperson the following year. From 1985 to 1994, he was elected and served on the Township Committee, during which his peers on the township committee elected him to serve in the capacities of both Major and Deputy Mayor. In 1995, Ewing Township held its first mayoral election and elected Alfred W. Bridges to serve as Mayor. Throughout his tenure, Mayor Bridges' contributions have enriched and enhanced our community. He has overseen the preparation and approval of the Green Acres grants valued at $1.5 million dollars as well as the extension of the Hollowbrook Community Center valued at $800,000. Mayor Bridges also oversaw the building of a new municipal and police complex, the creation of an Economic Redevelopment Agency and the procurement of a $4.5 million dollar low interest loan to reduce flooding in Ewing Township. In addition to his public service, Major Bridges is the Vice President for Government Relations at The College of New Jersey, where he was worked in various capacities since 1970. Mayor Bridges worked as a high school teacher in the Trenton school system after receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from The College in 1969. He holds a Masters Degree from Rider College. Once again, I rise to commend Major Al Bridges on his contributions to our community and to wish him much success in all of his future endeavors, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his lifetime of service to citizens of Ewing Township and New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, if we want to revitalize the airline industry, we have to get people back on the planes. It is clear that people do not feel safe flying. Airlines are losing money, and the number of passengers is way down. Yet, here we are, more than 2 months after the events of September 11 without an agreement on airline security. To prevent future attacks and to restore the public's confidence in flying, we must take steps. We cannot just hope that the same security companies that have committed gross violations of current law will do a better job in the future. We have Federal oversight of private, for- profit companies right now; and the current system is not working. This is a very real problem, and it deserves a real solution. Mr. Speaker, Congress should stay in session and pass an aviation security bill that protects the flying public.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2001. We need to be sure that the law allows families to have a wide range of investment advice as they plan for their retirement. As we do so, we need to ensure that there are adequate protections for these workers. Under the bill, there are protections. The advisors are subject to a fiduciary duty and will be personally liable for failure to act solely in the interest of the worker. Under the bill, the Labor Department is authorized to seek both criminal and civil penalties if an advisor breaches that responsibility. The language also contains provisions to ensure that there is full disclosure in plain language to the workers of fees and conflicts of interest. These disclosures and fiduciary protections are significantly stronger than the average investor has today. Now, the bill is not perfect. I believe that we may strengthen the bill by adding provisions to make sure that workers know where they can get a financial second opinion. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for representing my views and agreeing to take these into consideration in conference. I want to continue to work with him and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) on this subject as the bill moves through the legislative process. This bill gives workers important new options they do not now have. That is why we want to do it. It modernizes the law to reflect the realities of the real world, the way people actually invest and plan their retirements today. This is a step forward and worthy of support.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Paterson for yielding me time, and I thank my friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) also for advancing this legislation to recognize an important function, an important center, but especially to recognize an important American. Former Senator Frank Lautenberg has left a mark on America that we all should recognize. In education, his support for public schools; in law, his support to provide good legal advice for the less advantaged; in arts and culture; in the environment, clean air, clean water, excellent legislation dealing with open space and Superfund. But we all know him best for his work in transportation. In 14 years as ranking member and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, he made a mark on almost every aspect of transportation in America. It is not just building things and funding infrastructure, there is much of that that we can point to; but it was other things, such as we have heard mentioned today. He recognized that smoking is not just an annoyance; that other people's smoke actually is a health hazard, and he banned smoking in airplanes. But what I particularly remember is the work that he did to stop drunk driving. With his 0.08 alcohol level legislation, he saved so many lives that you could fill a sports stadium with the young adults who are alive today because of what he did. But, of course, the difficult point is, no one knows who those are, whose lives were saved, so we could not find them to fill the stadium. But, believe me, there are countless tragedies that have been prevented because of Frank Lautenberg's 0.08 alcohol legislation. So, throughout the area of transportation he has left an important mark, and it is fitting that we recognize him now in one area where he contributed something that is particularly relevant today, and that is transportation, specifically airline security. I commend my friends for advancing this legislation, and I urge its passage to the rest of my colleagues.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, ``Some 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle postulated that all matter is comprised of four basic elements: earth, water, air, and fire. The idea dominated science until the late 18th century, when revolutionaries from rival nations transformed chemistry from a jumble of medieval alchemy into a true science.'' This quotation, from the American Chemical Society's Frontiers of Knowledge, provides us with a perspective on chemistry's birth and its role as a cornerstone of modern science. I rise today to congratulate the American Chemical Society on the 125th anniversary of their establishment. The ACS has been both a symbol and active advocate for basic and applied research and the promotion of the benefits of a healthy and active chemical industry. The interaction between science, government, and the vitality of our nation are closely linked. Developments in chemistry are reflected in policy and public priorities throughout the world. This was probably far from the thoughts of the founders when they first met in New York on April 6, 1876 to organize the Society. As late as 1901, one of ACS' past presidents predicted a membership of nearly 10,000 chemists on their 100-year anniversary in 1976. In fact, membership in ACS reached 10,603 in 1917 and is over 163,000 today. To put ACS' inaugural year in perspective, this same year saw the issuance of a U.S. patent on the telephone to Alexander Graham Bell, the defeat of General Custer at Little Big Horn, and the formation of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. The need for a national organization to support chemists was reflected in an overwhelming number of early requests to form first a local New York City society and then a national society. The first regularly-scheduled meeting of the ACS took place on May 4, 1876. Annual dues were $5. ACS was still a New York corporation in 1937 when it reincorporated under an act of Congress, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as Public Act 358. ACS headquarters soon found a home in Washington, DC. Proceedings of the meetings were communicated to the chemical community through the publication of the Journal of the American Chemical Society, beginning in 1879. This journal was created to keep chemists informed about developments on the chemical frontier and is still the primary forum to communicate achievements in chemistry today. Developments in chemistry often paralleled national and global events. The impetus supplied by both World Wars I and II had an enormous impact on science and technology, and thus the nature of the ACS and the worldwide chemical enterprise. In fact, the end of WWII saw ACS as the new trustee of the Petroleum Research Fund, to be used solely to support advanced scientific education and fundamental research in the petroleum field. Petroleum security and supply remains one of the more crucial issues being addressed by professional chemists even today. In the mid-1960s, the growing role of the federal government in funding scientific research caused ACS to intensify their work in public affairs. They began to develop congressional testimony and public statements of the Society's position on a number of important matters under consideration by Congress and other federal agencies, including the government's cutbacks in space and military research and development. ACS was instrumental in helping chemists protect their jobs during economic downturns in these industries and to enhance the professional image of the discipline. In the late 20th century, significant developments in the field of electronics and microprocessor technology resulted in a sea change in analytical instrumentation, from chromatographs, both gas and liquid, to spectrometers, to wet chemistry systems. The development of fiber optic cables improved the storage and transmission of chemical data. As a result, ACS Division of Computers in Chemistry was formed in April 1974. Chemistry was becoming an integral part of the new global economy and information network. This is particularly relevant in northern New Jersey where ACS has spearheaded efforts to make this area a global leader in the development and production of pharmaceuticals. Over the last several decades, ACS realized that the public's view of the chemical industry was becoming tainted by some high-profile cases of contamination, initially triggered by the publication of Rachel Carson's ``Silent Spring'' and further reinforced by chemical releases endangering public health at Love Canal and Bhopal, India. To offset these events, ACS encouraged the establishment of the Chemical Manufacturers Association's (now the American Chemistry Council) Responsible Care Program. The goals of the program are to improve the chemical industry's performance on issues of health, safety, and environmental quality, and to improve the industry's response to public disquiet. ACS further responded to environmental concerns in January 2001 by making the Green Chemistry Institute part of their headquarter operations. GCI is designing new chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the generation and use of hazardous substances. The success of ACS at their 125-year mark is demonstrated by a membership more than 163,000 strong, 33 discipline divisions, and the publication of 34 different professional journals and magazines which contain more than three million pages of original, peer-reviewed research findings. ACS has been a leader in promoting science and the chemical profession and I hope that this body will anticipate celebrating their bicentennial anniversary to mark the next 75 years of achievements.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of his motion to instruct conferees. We know how to get a good airline security bill through Congress. We could have had the law by now. It is so straightforward, we can have it this week. Americans are pragmatic. They know that the current system of low- bid, low-wage contractors does not work. It does not catch knives, it does not catch mace, and it does not catch stun guns. And the American public do not like Members of Congress who are so caught up in their ideology, so sure of themselves, that they will not listen to the other side and they will not listen to the American people. Americans look at us in wonder. How can we be divided, stalled on this? We pass a $15 billion bailout bill for the airlines, but we cannot get around to simple airline security legislation? We might as well throw away the $15 billion of bailout money if we do not restore the confidence of passengers. Empty planes, well-paid executives, and well-financed airlines is not the prescription for economic recovery.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and I join in thanking the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) for introducing this legislation. This resolution was introduced several months ago in August, but we have had a strong reminder since then of the need for this recognition, that State after State, we are now reminded of how dependent we are on each other and how dependent we are on first responders and especially our police. In New Jersey when the alarm sounds, police officers put their lives on hold and answer. They work day and night to keep order in the community and to protect our liberties and our lives. On September 11 and the days following, they were active in emergency response and urban search and rescue, and day in and day out, they are in our schools and in our neighborhoods, teaching children a respect for community and a respect for orderly behavior. We owe them a great deal of thanks, and this is the least we can do tonight to pass this resolution in their honor. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) for initiating this, and I am proud to join him in it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, there is much that is good in this bill, and I would commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for a good bipartisan effort. But I would like to draw attention to a serious shortcoming in the bill. This bill provides $69 million less than in fiscal year 2001 for nonproliferation programs to stop the development of nuclear weapons and to stop the spread of nuclear materials around the world. Is there a person in America who thinks we should be doing less this next year than this year to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists? There are at least 14 documented instances over recent years of diversion of nuclear materials from the Soviet Union. We think we have caught most of them. On the front page of the New York Times on September 11 was an article about attempts to smuggle nuclear materials out of the Soviet Union. This is a real threat. Right now, because of new access and good agreements with the Soviet Union, we have a particularly good window of opportunity to put in place antiterrorist safeguards at numerous nuclear sites in Russia and the former Soviet Union. I do not see how we can look Americans in the face and say that we are going to shortchange this important program. I would like to see the bill returned to committee so that we could make these very important changes.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar bipartisan substitute. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I voted against the airline bailout bill. I voted against it not because I didn't think that we needed to take steps to insure the viability of our airline industry, but because that flawed piece of legislation didn't address the most important concern of all for the airlines--safety. If we want to revitalize the airline industry we have to get people back on the planes. We cannot do this unless we reassure them about the security of the airlines. It is clear that people do not feel safe flying. Just today, we received information that Delta Airlines has lost $295 million and United has lost $1.16 billion. If we really want to help out the airline industry, we have to make sure these losses don't continue. Yet here we are more than 50 days after the events of September 11 and we have just started to discuss the very real concern of aviation security here in the House of Representatives. To both prevent future attacks, and to restore the public's confidence in flying we must take steps to improve the way security is undertaken at our airports and in our airplanes. We cannot just make suggestions and hope that the same security companies that have committed gross violations of current law do a better job in the future. This is a very real problem and it demands a real solution. We need to change existing law, and we must take steps to improve cockpit security, to limit access to the cockpit and to strengthen cockpit doors. We need to improve the training of flight crews and pilots to deal with potential hijacking attempts. We need to conduct background checks on all employees with access to secure areas as well as those seeking flying lessons on large aircraft or flight simulators. We need to screen 100 percent of all checked bags at our airports. The technology exists right now to perform this basic task, yet it still isn't being done. Most importantly, we need to professionalize this industry to make sure the job is done right. The companies responsible for aviation security right now cannot be trusted to obey current laws. They're hiring felons and illegal immigrants and are failing to conduct the background checks required under current law. Current screeners are missing an unacceptable number of threat objects in tests conducted by the FAA. We cannot leave the same failing companies in charge of this important task and expect the results to change. We must professionalize this industry, and to do so we must federalize it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Oberstar-Ganske substitute.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I commend my friend from Connecticut for taking the time tonight. I thank him for sharing some of that time with me. I commend him for his eloquence. But mostly, now, I commend him for the work he has done to prepare this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of our colleagues will join in this because there is not a town in America that would not benefit from this legislation. I commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for the hard work he has put into preparing this and his energy in finding cosponsors and moving the legislation along.

Mr. HOLT. The benefits of this will be there even in those towns that are not touched by terrorism. The benefit of strategic response, improved communication, local threat assessment, all of that will lead to better policing, better firefighting, better community protection, and better community spirit, if as we hope is the case, we do not have more terrorism strikes in these towns. Although this is motivated by our national emergency, right now it is of general long-lasting benefit to our communities, and it is this sense of community that has grown out of our national emergency of the past 6 weeks. A realization, recognition, even a celebration of the fact that we are dependent on each other, that is the great lesson of the past 6 weeks, how dependent we are on each other; and that is why the emergency responders, police, fire, medical, are held in such high regard now, because people are reminded that we are dependent on them and we should do everything we can to make sure that they are equipped, that they have the resources to do the job that we ask them to do. I know that they are committed in their determination to public service, and it is not asking too much for us as a Congress to give them what they need to do their jobs.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, for yielding to me; but I thank him even more for putting together this good piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, clearly the gentleman is influenced by the work of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, two caucuses in which I am pleased to join the gentleman. He has drawn on the ideas in the fire bill, the ideas in the COPS program, two very successful pieces of legislation that, as the gentleman says, get the program, get the dollars down to the people on the ground. That is one of the wonderful features of the Community- Oriented Policing Program. Yes, it is a national program because so many communities share in the need, but it is really a local program. This is not run with the heavy hand of the Federal Government. The COPS program actually gets money to police on the street, on the beats, in the neighborhoods. When we are dealing with emergencies, with terrorist attacks such as we saw in New York City, or as we are seeing right now using less visible attacking instruments, biological weapons, it hits locally. It hits at home. The gentleman's bill gets the action locally and at home. So I am really very pleased to be able to join the gentleman, not only as an original cosponsor but as someone who is actively trying to build the list of cosponsors and move along. I have just come from a meeting of the Homeland Security Task Force, where we are working to include this legislation in our proposal of overall efforts to deal with bioterrorism. If I may for a moment, I would just like to point out a few of the features that I find so attractive in this bill. I have met a number of times with first responders in my district, most recently just last week. My district in central New Jersey has felt the blow of terrorism really quite directly, not only in the number of lives that were lost in the attack on the World Trade Center and in the plane crashes, but in the response of our emergency personnel on September 11, in the subsequent days in our urban search and rescue teams, and now with the bioterrorism that has touched Ewing and West Trenton in my district. These local responders that I have met with, although they have really taken a blow, they are really strong in their determination. They have worked closely together, towns with other towns, towns with counties, towns with the State, individual rescue and emergency squads. They like the idea of the gentleman's bill that provides an opportunity for a strategic response that is regional; for liaison between units of local government. They also like the idea of communication that the gentleman has built into this, communication with authorities in the event of an emergency and communication from authorities to the population at large. They understand how critical communication is, clear, accurate communication, in a situation such as we have now in Ewing, where the post office has been part of or has been touched by this bioterrorism. So the gentleman's bill, if I may say our bill, deals with these in a way that I find our local emergency responders like.

Mr. HOLT. It is easy to say we can have good clear communication if we have a centralized authority. But, in fact, when terrorism has taken place, it is necessarily a group of individuals from neighboring towns that respond. And so the communication has to be set up in such a way that it flows in from many people, and it flows out to the whole population. And that depends on coordination, and in many cases that exists only in a really sketchy undeveloped form. This legislation would help develop that. The other point that I wanted to make that is so very important, when we talk about the threat assessments, we talk about what might be the targets of terrorism. Well, it is easy for somebody here in Washington in some agency to imagine what are vulnerable sites to attack around the country. But, in fact, it is the people who live in the town; it is the local police who know the town block by block, alley by alley, who are better, who are best able to determine what the vulnerabilities are out there. The gentleman's bill, again, if I may say, our bill gets at that and uses this local talent in identifying the targets of terrorism using the guidelines that are developed nationally.

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. HOLT. Absolutely. Schools in America are local. We talk about the education bills that come out of Congress and all of that, and there are certainly some important things we have done in setting the tone of fairness and accomplishment and accountability; but ultimately the schools are funded locally. They are staffed locally. They are designed and built locally. And if we are going to prepare the schools to deal with terrorist threats and other emergencies, that has to be done locally. The vulnerabilities have to be recognized locally and the responses have to be developed locally. Again, that is what this bill does. It has a very local focus to a problem that is shared in every town, at every town and county around America. Remember, a lot of what we are talking about is preparing all of America for a dangerous time. It would be nice to think that it is only the urban centers that are going to have problems. Well, a week or 2 or 3 ago people would not have thought of Boca Raton, Florida, Palm Beach County as an area that would be touched by terrorism or West Trenton or Hamilton, New Jersey, as areas that would be touched by terrorism. The point is if we are going to have presentation nationally, it has to reach every town and every county, just as a public health system only works if the doctors and the county health authorities and so forth are part of a network that is national.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address my colleagues regarding S. 1465. As we pass this legislation today, I wanted to note for the record certain reservations I have about authorizing the President to waive sanctions against Pakistan. I am in favor of providing aid to Pakistan and helping them develop economically. This development is crucial for a transition to a democratic form of government. Our relationship with Pakistan is especially important in light of the events since September 11. We must continue to cement our alliance with Pakistan and all interested countries in order to maintain our campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, I question whether waiving restrictions on U.S. arms exports is the best way to help these countries. South Asia, as we now know, is an extremely volatile area. In the last 50 years, India and Pakistan, who both have nuclear capabilities, have fought three conflicts. As we have seen in just the last few days, the area around Kashmir continues to be a source of tension in the region. Any weapons that we export to these countries could be used in future conflicts. Do we really want to contribute to the instability of this region by providing more weapons? United States law prohibits the export of arms to government in power due to a military coup. Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Act for FY01 prohibits the export of weapons and military assistance to countries whose duly elected head of government is deposed. Reversing this policy without making any stipulations about the re-establishment of democracy could send the wrong message to undemocratic regimes. These are extraordinary times. Extreme measures may be necessary. But the President has already exercised his right to provide American weapons and military assistance when national security interests are at stake, as allowed by section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act. Congress should not waive sanctions on arms export to India and Pakistan unless the President shows that the assistance he has already provided is insufficient. If these sanctions are waived, there is no guarantee that the United States has any control over the weapons exported. Our experiences in Somalia, Iran, Iraq, an Afghanistan demonstrate this. How do we know that American weapons will not fall into the hands of potential enemies and threaten our troops at a future date? The Taliban may own up to 100 Stinger missiles that were provided by the United States in the 1980s for their clash with the Soviet Union. As I mentioned earlier, I worry about the message that the United States sends to undemocratic regimes by allowing exports to countries without stipulations about the establishment of democracy. To allow such a waiver regardless of a country's human rights standards violates one of the central tenets of U.S. foreign policy. Congress should exercise caution, for allowing such waivers now may lead to broader waivers later. The fight against terrorism should not be at the expense of our principles. Madam Speaker, instead of providing military aid, the United States should target its aid toward the more immediate needs of the people of Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India rank No. 127 and No. 114, respectively, in the U.N.'s Human Development Index. More weapons will not move them up in these rankings. The United States should provide economic assistance to the people of Pakistan and India--not more weapons.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) spoke of, the need to take advantage of the tremendous possibilities of modern educational technology in this Internet age, particularly for nontraditional students. We want that, but we must be careful how we go about it. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment that will be offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). As my colleagues know, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has played a part in every significant higher education law passed in Congress since 1965. She is our expert on this subject. Her substitute amendment makes good sense. We should listen and heed her experience. Let me speak for a minute about this bill, especially for Members who may not have had an opportunity to attend the hearings on H.R. 1992. Back in the year 1992, Congress established new rules to safeguard Federal student financial loan programs; and these rules were put into effect because more than one student in five was defaulting on loans within 2 years after leaving school. And these loan default rates were much higher at some schools than others. It was a national disgrace, as well as a waste of money. Cases of fraud and abuse were widespread and were the subject of hearings here in Congress. As a result, working together, Democrats and Republicans put in safeguards that have protected students, the schools, and taxpayers and brought student loan default rates down tremendously. The legislation before us today, while attempting to update our policies dealing with distance learning, alters or eliminates several of these important protections. It makes these changes in an environment where few Members have a clear understanding of what the changes will mean. That is part of the reason why H.R. 1992 is opposed by education groups like the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and the American Association of University Professors. It is important to remember that next year Congress will begin reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Why these important changes cannot wait for the full examination at that time, I do not know. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk for a moment about the so-called 12-hour rule, what it is and what it means to students and taxpayers. I offered an amendment in committee that would have stricken the provisions in this bill to eliminate the 12-hour rule, and I am pleased that those provisions will be in the amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). Simply put, H.R. 1992 eliminates the requirement in law that students enroll in at least 12 hours of face-to-face course work to receive full student financial aid. In 1992, the Higher Education Act did not define what a full-time student was. The Department of Education, for nonstandard students, defined a week of instruction as any week in which at least 12 hours of instruction, examination, or preparation was offered. Well, there is general agreement among educators that the 12-hour requirement of seat-time is not the only, probably not even the best way to qualify for full-time pursuit of higher education. Consider for a moment, would any reasonable person out in America say that a student who logs on one day a week, not all day but some time, one day a week, is a full-time student? That is not the way most people in my district would define a full-time student. That would allow, I am afraid, real abuse in the awarding of student loans to schools. The Department of Education, in its recently released report, ``Student Financial Assistance and Nontraditional Educational Programs,'' concluded there is a need for a policy change in this area but that there is no consensus yet about what that change should be. Further, last year two items related to nontraditional programs were included in the Department's proposed agenda for negotiated rulemaking, including application of a 12-hour rule. We have heard about the Web-based Commission as the so-called reason for this legislation before us today. The Web-based Commission did not recommend any specific changes, such as changing the 12-hour rule to a 1-day rule. The commission merely encouraged the Federal Government to review and, if necessary, revise. Those are the commission's words, to revise these provisions. The substitute amendment by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) would allow us to review these provisions before we revise them. We certainly should do that. Abruptly changing the 12-hour rule to a 1-day rule opens the door to fraud and abuse.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the time, and I rise today in support of the rule which allows a substitute amendment. In particular, this amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), I think makes the bill into what we want it to be, which would be an encouragement for flexibility in this Internet Age and education. I would like to speak for just a minute on what the bill is about. Congress established new rules to safeguard Federal financial aid loan programs, and these rules were put into effect because more than one student in five was defaulting on loans within 2 years of leaving school. This was an embarrassment to the Congress, an embarrassment to the country, and a waste of money. These loan-default rates were much higher at some schools than others. There were cases of an auto repair shop operating out of a fruit stand and so forth and so on. In particular, the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) would correct two glaring problems with this bill that I think would only perpetuate or take us back to the time of serious misuse of the student loan program. Simply put, H.R. 1992 eliminates the requirement in law that students enroll for at least 12 hours of time in a course and replaces that with a 1-day rule that would allow students to log on sometime during the week and as a result be declared full-time students; and the schools then would be eligible to collect student aid for those students' tuition. It also changes the regulations that would allow some schools to offer bounties on recruitment of students, some of whom never really intend to be students. So I think this rule, by allowing a substitute, will allow us to correct the legislation and make it what we really want, something that will ensure flexibility in education today.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and others have talked about distinguished schools like Stanford, Georgia Tech, that offer Internet-only courses. I think that is wonderful. When we talk about the 12-hour rule, we are not talking against Internet-only education. We want nontraditional possibilities. I am a fan of this. I grew up around this. My father did what was the equivalent in his day. He got his law degree by correspondence school. In fact, I understand the correspondence school spoke with great admiration of the quality of his work in this correspondence school. Today, it would be by the Internet. The Web-based Commission we have spoken about today as the reason for this bill before us says, ``The question is no longer if the Internet can be used to transform learning in new and powerful ways. The commission has found that it can.'' None of us doubt that. We are not speaking against the virtual university, but we want to make sure that we do not return to the ``anything goes'' kind of regulations. The great educator, Agassiz, said in the 19th century that a pencil is the best chart. Well, if he were speaking today, it might very well be the computer or the Internet. But let us not use the name of high technology to discard standards and common sense. I once again ask Members to apply the ``reasonable person'' rule to determine what is common sense: Would a person in our districts say that logging on sometime during the week makes one a full-time student? Would we be comfortable leaving the door open for any fly-by-night school operator, and believe me, we have seen them, fruit stands that are offering auto repair courses, a school that offered language courses only in one language to students who spoke only another language, or a Texas truck-driving school that lost its eligibility and formed a new partnership with a Kansas liberal arts college. We have seen fly-by-night operators. Would the reasonable person feel comfortable with potential fly-by- night operators out there being able to offer courses like this and say, we have this many hundred full-time students who are collecting Federal student money and passing it on to this school? It would appear, I think, to open the door for them to take advantage to grab Federal dollars. And I would argue that even reputable schools would benefit from a definition of a full-time student that brings respect of Americans to this use of Federal funds for student aid, so there is general agreement among educators that 12 hours of seat time is not the only or not even the best measure or criteria for full-time study. I understand that this rule needs to be revised to address the rise in distance education. The Web-based Commission said it should be revised, but did not recommend any specific change, such as changing the 12-hour rule to a very vague one-day rule. The commission merely encouraged ``. . . the Federal Government to review and, if necessary, revise'' these provisions. Abruptly changing the 12-hour rule to a one-day rule opens the door for fraud and abuse and a real loss of standards in appropriate use of Federal funds for higher education. I appreciate the efforts to protect against fraud by requiring notification if a school dips below the 12-hour rule, but this notification will not protect the quality of these programs. That is why I so strongly support the substitute amendment of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Borough of Rocky Hill, New Jersey and its Tri-Centennial Heritage Day celebration. For three centuries, the community of Rocky Hill has made tremendous contributions to our state and our nation through its legacy of committed residents and unique spirit of pride and unity. Rocky Hill, less than one square mile in size, has a rich history that began in 1717 when John Harrison obtained land from Indian Chief Nowenock. Then, in 1783, as he awaited the news that the Treaty of Paris had been signed, General George Washington prepared his famed ``Farewell to the Troops'' at his home Rockingham, located in Rocky Hill. As we know it, Rocky Hill enjoyed industrial success at the turn of the century due to its proximity to the Delaware and Raritan Canal as well as the opening of the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company's spur line along the Millstone River. This water traffic carried not only passengers, but lumber, coal and vegetables. Rocky Hill has been home to not only President and General George Washington, but John Hart, a New Jersey Signer of the Declaration of Independence as well as a more recent outstanding American, former Rocky Hill Council-Member, Bill Fallon, a victim of the tragic September 11th attack. Rocky Hill is home to a tight-knit community of families and friends and the celebration of the Tri-Centennial presents an opportunity to pause and reflect on our history and to strengthen and renew our spirit for the centuries to come. Mr. Speaker, again, I celebrate this Tri-Centennial Heritage Day and honor the Borough of Rocky Hill and its residents, both past and present, who have worked so diligently to make this day possible. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this community and its 300th anniversary.