Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. And I had a chance to listen to her speech and also jot down some of the factors that motivated her for embarking upon this cause. Just to recite a few of those tonight: she was concerned that government is being corrupted through campaign contributions made by the big contributors, the big money going into campaigns that results, in her words, in a quid pro quo response from elected officials. That has been a common theme during her talks or speech today as the growing cynicism and the perception of corruption in the political process. And it is a theme that is reiterated in the recent Supreme Court decision, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government, in which the Justices in a six to three decision basically said legislators have the constitutional authority to limit the amount of money coming into campaigns, not only to combat corruption in the political process, but also to deal with the appearance of corruption in the political process. That is an important point. Again, the opponents of reform are always quick to come down to the House floor arguing against a piece of legislation by trying to turn the issue around, by pointing to us and saying listen, Rush Holt, you have accepted campaign contributions. Do you feel corrupted? Do you feel like you are influenced now because of those contributions? Asking us to specifically cite instances of corruption that might be going on in the halls of this great body. The Supreme Court says that is really beside the point. It could be one justification, a constitutional underpinning for why Congress feels the need to limit the amount flowing into campaigns. But there is also another very important reason, and that is the appearance of corruption, that all this money flowing into the campaigns have on the American people, on people like Granny D, who cited it. It is really giving cause, I feel, to the growing cynicism that is permeating our society and why we are seeing voter participation declining election year after election year. It is because they feel a disempowerment. A couple of other reasons that she cited, she feels that the politicians today do not give enough concern to people who do not contribute the big money, no matter how important the issue might be. She also saw an opportunity to do something about it, and she did. She felt politically powerless, this is in her words, something that no American should ever feel. She sees the three most important things that our government must do in regards to financial reform is, A, banning the soft money; B, enacting the public financing of an election, starting at local levels and working up, just as the State of Maine has done, and we will see it play out this year for the first time during an election cycle; and, finally, the right to free political advertising on a controlled scale. Finally, these are ideas that we have been working with in the context of finance reform, ideas that she again cited in support of her cause for finance reform. But during the course of her travels, she was interviewed by the national media numerous times. Some of the early morning talk shows had her on, Eyewitness. She said she met a lot of wonderful people who would feed and house her at different times in different States. She went through four pairs of sneakers during her 3,100-mile hike. The people around the country would come up to her and say things such as, you are walking for me, Granny. You are my voice. You are my face. God bless you. And get this, she even caught pneumonia in Arizona, of all places. She needs to come and visit my great State of Wisconsin before she gets some real pneumonia. But she recovered. After she recovered, she kept going with her walk. Her intent was actually to conclude her walk on the steps of the Capitol on February 24, which was her 90th birthday. Unfortunately, she was a few days late in arriving, but her message was as strong arriving today as it would have been even on the 24th. Her message focuses on getting people to contact their Federal representatives to get them to support Shays-Meehan on the House side and the McCain-Feingold bill on the Senate side. During her walk she gained increasing support from both public and national leaders. Granny D's concern is that the government is being corrupted through money from large contributors. Just to quote a couple of statements that she made during a New Hampshire town hall meeting last October, 1999, she said, First, we do need to get soft money out of our elections with the Federal law. A minority of Senators did not want to take their medicine last week when they killed the McCain- Feingold bill in Washington, so we will have to make them take their pill when they come home for reelection. If they won't get soft money out of the system, and they have turned down opportunities to do so 4 years in a row, then it is simply time for us to get them out of the system. That I think is a very important point, because in all issues such as this it ultimately becomes an election issue, and what campaigns and elections are all about: who you support for the issues that you want to see pursued and enacted in the United States Congress. Until there are enough Americans, I feel, that feel strongly enough about the appearance of corruption or even the corruption itself in the political process and start holding their representatives' feet to the fire and make this an election year issue, I am afraid it is going to continue to languish, and it will continue to meet excuse after excuse for failing to enact it. That is why I think good policy is making good politics, even in the presidential campaigns today. We have seen Senator McCain talking about this issue. He is the chief cosponsor, along with my Senator, Russ Feingold, from Wisconsin driving this issue in the Senate for many years already. I think that has been resonating with the American people, and why he has been receiving the support that he has during the course of the campaign season. Vice President Al Gore has also been a champion of McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan, and is fully supportive of the reform bill. Senator Bill Bradley, another presidential candidate, is in strong support of campaign finance reform. I think in this instance, in this election year, good policy is going to make for good politics.

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

Mr. HOLT. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 90th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. This organization was founded with the purpose of helping to give young men a sense of self worth and satisfaction from knowing they can accomplish the goals they set and a sense that they are part of a winning team. Today, this organization continues to provide young men with values and experiences that cultivate discipline and a sense of responsibility; traits that they carry with them throughout their lives. The Boy Scouts of America teaches values of community and service to our Nation. In the wake of such tragedies as Columbine and an increase in the number of reports of alienation of youngsters at school, we need only to turn to the Scout Oath as a fine example for what is right with our youth. Do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country, to obey the Scout Law, and to help other people at all times. These are solid values that youth should use to build a foundation for their lives. The Boy Scouts instill values that make our community much stronger: public service, volunteerism and good citizenship. Scouting develops both self reliance and teamwork. From its beginning in 1911, the Boy Scouts have grown in size to more than 5 million active members in 1999. In the 90 years since their incorporation, the Boy Scouts have influenced more than 100 million boys, young men and women. While much has changed in the past 90 years, the Boy Scouts remain committed to their founding principles. The Boy Scouts have strengthened efforts to provide value-based curriculum and character building youth programs. By providing youth with the tools to make good decisions and providing the clues to their own inner strength the Boy Scouts have imbued in their members a commitment to improving the world around them. Recently, I was honored by the Central New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts of America as their Good Scout Honoree of 1999. I am honored and inspired by their commitment to pursuing the best for the youth of our Country. As a former Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster, I share the values set forth in the Scout Law and Scout Oath. I see them demonstrated regularly when I attend Eagle Scout Courts of Honor in my district. I thank the Scouters, volunteers and parents who contribute their time and energy to making the Boy Scouts of America a place that young men, and now young women, can turn for guidance, leadership and worthy life experiences. The impact of Scouting on youth is truly a life changing experience. On this 90th Anniversary of Scouting, I wish the Boy Scouts of America continued success in the future as they strive to help build character and strengthen the communities around the country for the next generations of Americans.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help protect our children from illness and disease that can result from chemical exposure to pesticides. My legislation, the School Environment Protection (SEPA) Act, addresses the need for schools to provide protective action from the effects of pesticide use in school buildings and on school grounds. Parents entrust their children's safety to schools and have the right to know what toxic substances their children are being exposed to. There are safe alternatives to the use of dangerous chemicals as pesticides and herbicides. This bill would encourage schools to use integrated pest management techniques that have proven to be safe and effective. In the event that potentially dangerous chemicals would have to be used, this Right to Know Act will require our schools to inform parents of any risk to which their children would be exposed. My proposal will take simple steps to ensure children's safety in the place where they spend most of their time, school. When it comes to pesticide exposure, children are one of the least protected groups. Due to their small size, children take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and are also less likely to detoxify toxic chemicals through their still developing organ systems. The National Academy of Sciences Report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, found that the current EPA generally lacks data on children's susceptibility to pesticide exposure that would allow them to provide adequate standards necessary to protect children. The EPA is beginning the process to review pesticides, however, this could take them months or even years. Meanwhile, schools are frequently using pesticides that have the potential to harm our children's physical and mental development. Maryland schools reported 94% of their school districts surveyed used pesticides that have been linked to cancer. Similar results were yielded in California with 93% of its school districts surveyed using pesticides known for causing cancer. This usage can be a serious detriment to our children's health. We do not have time to wait for the EPA's results. According to the National Cancer Institute, childhood cancer has increased over 1 percent a year. Too many of our children's health and lives are at risk now and in the future. Studies have shown that children living in households where pesticides are used suffered elevated rates of soft tissue sarcoma, leukemia and brain cancer. A study done by Childhood Leukemia and Parents' Occupational and Home Exposures found that in homes where pesticides were used a 3.8-fold higher risk of childhood leukemia was likely and when pesticides were used in the garden a 6.5-fold higher risk was reported. Some states have taken action to combat this ever-growing problem, however state protection is uneven and children in 20 states have no protection at all from these potentially deadly chemicals. My SEPA legislation will require the use of the safest pesticides in and around our schools. All pesticides that have been determined to cause cancer, mutations, neurological and immune system effects and other serious toxic effects will be excluded from use in schools. Schools may use conventional pesticides if less toxic substances cannot control or prevent a pest as long as the school community is given at least 24 hours notice of application. Several national and regional groups have already come out in support of my bill. This includes the National Education Association, Children's Health Environment Coalition, Citizens for a Better Environment, New Jersey Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and the New Jersey Environmental Federation. SEPA will force our nation to better protect all our children from unnecessary chemical effects and assist our youth in living healthier, longer lives. I urge all my colleagues to join in this ``Right to Know'' effort by supporting the School Environmental Protection Act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Charles Wowkanech, who has served the labor movement in a variety of capacities over the last 25 years. Since January of 1997, Mr. Wowkanech has led local union members as the president of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO. Mr. Wowkanech began his career as a business representative for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 in West Caldwell, NJ. There he was responsible for organizing and negotiating contracts covering employee health benefits plans statewide in industrial and commercial complexes. After joining the NJ state AFL-CIO in March of 1990, Mr. Wowkanech served for 6 years as assistant to the president, representing the organization on health insurance matters and in all related legislative activities. Mr. Wowkanech also served on the New Jersey Health Care Cost Reduction Advisory Committee and participated in the Health Care Reform Coalition, which helped develop far-reaching health care reforms adopted by the State Legislature in 1992. In May of 1995, the Executive Board (with the reaffirmation of its 600 delegates) named Mr. Wowkanech the Secretary-Treasurer of the NJ State AFL-CIO. And as the former Chairman of the New Jersey Individual Health Coverage Program Board (IHC), Mr. Wowkanech was responsible for getting the state to adopt the strictest consumer protection standards in the nation. In the spring of 1997, the Essex County Boy Scouts Council named Mr. Wowkanech ``Good Scout of the Year.'' He continues to serve as labor's representative to the IHC Board and is also a member of the Governor's Council for a Drug-Free Workplace. Currently, he is a member of the executive boards of the Botto House National Labor Museum, the Rutgers Labor Center, and the Tri-State United Way's Board of Governors. Mr. Wowkanech resides with his wife, Lu Ann, and his sons Charles and Michael in Ocean City, New Jersey. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Wowkanech's community service. I extend to him my appreciation and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, what a wise man, what a good man George Brown was. We have heard tonight of his efforts to create or strengthen various scientific institutions, the National Science Foundation, the White House Science Advisers, OSTP, the EPA, the Office of Technology Assessment, NASA. He advanced international scientific cooperation, energy conservation, alternative sources of energy, sustainable agriculture, peaceful uses of space. He advanced the cause of peace around the world. I have long respected George Brown for these contributions as a scientist and as a Member of Congress before I got to know him. When I was a AAAS fellow in Congress in the early 1980s, George Brown served as a positive example to us fellows of how government policy could be used in the support and advancement of science. His personal enthusiasm and passion for science and for the people associated with the fields of science has left perhaps the most lasting impression of George Brown around the country. And, Mr. Speaker, I will provide for the Record some of the remarks of other AAAS fellows who have shared with me their memories of George Brown. George Brown understood the big picture of how science could benefit the world and how to construct government mechanisms and policy to appropriately support it. I believe no one in Washington had a better understanding of the role and the nature of science. George Brown was a champion of science, but he was not an apologist for science. It was George who challenged both the scientific community and its policy advocates to be self-aware, yes, to be self-critical lest we continue to, in his words, develop an uncritical faith that where science leads us is where we want to go. George Brown did not shy away from asking the tough questions. He pointed out that ``It is still difficult to draw a correlation between scientific and technological capability on the one hand and quality of life on the other.'' He reminded us that if we look at the world as a whole, it is not at all clear that advances in science and technology have translated into sustainable advances in the quality of life for the majority of the human race. He warned us of the potential societal crisis fueled by a deteriorating public education system, unaffordable health care, ethnic polarization, urban violence, environmental degradation, and the lack of political courage and leadership necessary for decisive action on these matters. Representative George E. Brown, Jr. had that kind of courage and he demonstrated it in each of his 18 terms in this House. George Brown never took the easy or politically expedient way. What a model he provided for us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this past October 23rd marked the one-year anniversary of the death of Dr. Barnett Slepian. Dr. Slepian was an obstetrician-gynecologist who provided birth control and fertility service, delivered babies, and, when needed, performed abortions. One year ago Dr. Slepian was shot through the window of his own home in Buffalo, New York. A year later, the murder of Dr. Slepian still casts a chill on everyone who believes in a woman's right to reproductive freedom. To this day, I am shocked and saddened by the death of Dr. Slepian. For more than a decade, he had bravely stood up to terrorists threats, never wavering in his commitment to his patients and to women's reproductive health. I salute Dr. Slepian's courage and that of reproductive health care workers across the nation. My heartfelt condolences go out to his family, friends, and colleagues. A nationwide campaign of violence, vandalism, and blockades is curtailing the availability of abortion services and endangering providers and patients. Since 1993, three doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard have been murdered. And although clinic protection laws at the state and federal level have alleviated some forms of violence against abortion clinics, the threats, intimidation, and violence against clinic providers and staff continues. This domestic terrorism hinders access to abortion services and threatens the lives of those dedicated in ensuring a woman's right to choose and therefore, must be stopped.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, it is what magicians learn in their early courses of misdirection. If they have their hand in the cookie jar, point to the other person and accuse them of engaging in thievery or lockpicking, or whatever it is that they are accusing us of. It is preposterous, insulting, and insulting to the American people.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for 200 years this body has operated most of the time in a bipartisan, courteous way. As my colleague was saying a moment ago, if the Speaker's party lost on a vote, the Speaker said, well, we gave it a good shot. We made our best case. The other side won. That is the way representative government works, and the Speaker would appoint people who would see that the best legislation came out of that vote.

Mr. HOLT. The American people are not interested in gotcha strategies within the internal politics of this body. They want legislation that deals with issues that they deal with at home, that they talk about at their kitchen tables. We have just been through a long list of those that could have and should have been dealt with in the past 10 months.

Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and I am pleased to be here with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). You know, when the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and I and the other freshmen Members of Congress in both parties arrived here, we thought perhaps there would be less partisanship than we had seen in the preceding years here in Congress. As the gentleman may recall, the previous Speaker left following a less than stellar performance in the last election, and we find now, unfortunately, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) was saying, that partisanship did not depart with the previous Speaker. We end up with important legislation that the public wants, and the gentleman has been through it with your tombstone illustrations, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has repeated these. These are things that people want, Americans of both parties, Republicans and Democrats, and, in fact, I would say many of the moderate Democrats with whom we serve here in the House of Representatives and many of the moderate Republicans with whom we serve here in the House of Representatives. But the leadership that controls the agenda of the House will not let these come up. We are, by most accounts, nearly done with the first session of Congress and the leadership is now preparing to adjourn for the year without having done these things that the Americans say are important, that I hear about in my district in New Jersey: Campaign finance reform, gun safety. You know, they think maybe the public will not notice that we have not dealt with gun safety because they scheduled it so the votes would occur in the middle of the night, but my constituents notice that it has not been dealt with. The Patients' Bill of Rights. Well, yes, we passed it by a large majority here in the House, but the leadership, again, who control the schedule of these things, weeks later are only beginning to get around to the conference that would be necessary for this to actually become law. A Medicare prescription drug benefit, nowhere to be seen; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, not ready yet; school construction, school construction assistance, that so many school districts in urban areas, in fast-growing suburban areas, really all over the country need, and the smaller class size and more teachers, more well-trained teachers, nowhere; paying our obligation to the United Nations, I hear about that from my constituents, not done. Among all these priorities left untouched is social security, so let me touch on that for a minute. Protecting social security I think should be our first priority. The President, in his State of the Union addresses this year and the previous year said, save social security first. Protecting social security is so important to me that the first bill I brought to a vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives was the social security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 1999. This bill would have preserved social security and Medicare. It would have forced us to deal with this issue. The first speech that I gave on the floor of the House even before that was about the need to protect social security. I even voted for the bipartisan lockbox legislation to preserve social security, which did eventually pass the House, but really went nowhere because the leadership was too busy concocting an $800 billion tax cut. So throughout the past several months I have served on the bipartisan Social Security Task Force. I must say that preparing for the retirement of the baby boom generation looms as one of the Nation's challenges. I am very disappointed by the lack of commitment in finding a long-term solution. When social security was passed in 1935, as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) points out, to be old was usually to be destitute. Social security has changed that. Social security has worked. People in the U.S. believe that it is of fundamental value to help workers save for retirement. But the leadership has not shored up social security. Instead, like magicians engaging in misdirection, they have instead accused the Democrats in the press and in paid political advertisements that we, we in the minority, are spending social security. Not only have they not gotten around to this central problem, but they spent so much of this year developing this exorbitant scheme to spend money that we do not even have and may never have; in other words, a scheme that would in fact take us into spending social security funds. In fact, they are already spending social security funds by virtue of the fact that they have failed to complete the appropriations for the current fiscal year by the end of the month of September, as they had promised and as is expected. So in fact they are spending at last year's rate, which means they are exceeding this year's caps. So what are we going to do about social security? Social security pays benefits to more than 4.7 million disabled workers. Because about 25 to 30 percent of today's 20-year-olds will become disabled sometime before retirement, the protection provided by the SSDI program is extremely important. Today nearly every wage-earner now pays into the social security system. We have to assure them that this is a sound investment. We do not have to ask a retiree if social security is a good program, they know it is. They want it preserved. We need to reassure the younger workers that this is such a good program for them. Younger workers are skeptical. The fact remains that few of today's young workers are likely to have enough personal savings or private pension benefits to support themselves in the appropriate style after their retirement. Like the current generation of elderly, they will be heavily dependent on social security. It is incumbent on us to deal with that. Social security is the most successful program of government in the United States in the 21st century. We must not forget that it provides vitally important protections for American seniors. The majority of workers have no pension coverage other than social security, and more than 60 percent of seniors depend on social security for the bulk of their livelihood. This is just one of the many priorities that this Congress has failed to deal with in this session, which is rapidly approaching the close. I do not know what more we can do except say, as my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others of us have said night after night, these are important issues, let us deal with them. Let us deal with them in a bipartisan manner. What more can we do?

Mr. HOLT. Strike three.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sympathy and support for the people of Armenia in the wake of yesterday's tragic attack on the Armenian parliament. Mr. Speaker, Armenia has been a model of democracy and market reform in the post-Soviet world. This past summer, Armenia held open and competitive national elections. Just this past week, it held exemplary local elections. Prime Minister Vazgen Sarkisian, Parliament Speaker Karen Demirchian, and the six other officials who were slain yesterday were leaders of this transition to democracy. They were also leaders in combating corruption, bolstering the economy, and establishing peace in their troubled region. Their senseless deaths present a tragic loss to Armenia--and to freedom and democracy worldwide. I urge my colleagues to join me in offering my deepest condolences to the Armenian people, and my strongest support to their ongoing efforts to bring democracy, peace, and stability to their nation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Congress this year, I am pleased to be here to represent the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey. Running for Congress is indeed a wonderful experience. It reminds one of what a magnificent place America is, a place full of hard-working, talented people. It reminds you that citizens here truly care about important issues facing our communities throughout the Nation, things like improving our schools and fighting suburban sprawl, protecting Social Security, holding the line on taxes for seniors and middle-class families. But running for Congress also reminds one of something else, that our country's campaign finance system is broken and needs to be fixed. We all know it. A campaign system where wealthy corporations can donate millions of dollars to political parties has the potential to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. A campaign system where special interests can spread an unlimited amount of money on attack ads to smear and distort a candidate's record is wrong; a campaign system where we, as elected representatives, have to spend time raising money instead of addressing the issues. One of the best ways, I believe, that this can be accomplished is through a restructuring of our campaign finance laws. It is one of the essential steps to begin restoring people's faith in government. That is why the first act I undertook after being sworn in as a Representative was to become an original cosponsor of the reintroduction of the Shays-Meehan bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and furthermore it is why I voted in favor of the legislation when it came under the consideration of this House. It appears that this legislation will not pass Congress this year, that we who care about a government that is responsive to the people rather than special interests must not let up. This bipartisan bill is desperately needed to shut down the out-of-control soft money system which undermines the values upon which our democratic system of government is based. The stakes are high and we must act.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to include science in the bill. I rise in support of H.R. 2 which provides educational support for low-income students. Let me first say that I commend the bipartisan effort that has gone into making this a strong bill. As a teacher and a scientist, it is refreshing for me to see Members put their partisan differences aside to work on a bill that will help all our children. Every child in this nation has the right to receive an excellent education. Furthermore, it is necessary for the well being of society at large for all children to receive an excellent education. The accountability provisions for the funds provided in this bill are critical to the success of ensuring a quality education for all. This bill requires that judgments about school progress be based on disaggregated data. That is, all at-risk subgroups of students must be making adequate yearly progress toward proficiency in reading and math. I rise in support of Mr. Petri's amendment to include science among the subjects in which student progress and proficiency are measured. Science education has been established as a national priority. This Congress has supported that priority by maintaining and strengthening teacher training in math and science in the teacher bill we passed in July. National efforts to improve science and math education are resulting in exciting new teaching methods. These hands-on methods allow students to conduct experiments and learn to question and discover for themselves. Science classes are gateways for our children to the opportunities of tomorrow. But we need to do more. The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) results showed that U.S. 12th graders are lagging below the international average in science and math. Previous Congresses have encouraged states to establish standards for what our children should be learning in science. Forty states have standards for our children in science. But only 26 are actually testing to find out if the students are learning according to these standards.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, any magician knows that in playing a shell game or trying to use sleight of hand, the trick is to hide something in the most obvious place, and that is what is used for misdirection. Well, the other party is using that trick, trying to say that Social Security is what the Democrats are playing around with; that Social Security is what Democrats are undermining. But Social Security is the creation of the Democratic party. It was one of the great accomplishments of the New Deal. Of course, it is one of the great accomplishments of government in the 20th century. I am sure the American public understands that we, as a party, hold Social Security in the highest regard and intend to do everything we can to preserve and shore up Social Security for the future generations, not just for this year's seniors, not just for next year's seniors, but for this year's young, working people, for this year's toddlers.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, of course, my colleagues will recall that the President did say in each of the last two State of the Union addresses when he said save Social Security first. We should have acted on that instead of cooking up seven or eight hundred billion dollar tax cut schemes, plans, follies. But Social Security should be shored up. We should restore the trust in Social Security to the American public before we go on to any new tax cuts, any new spending. This is one of the great accomplishments of the 20th century, and we really should get that in place. But that is a longer term issue. In the short term now, of course, the public can watch; and they will see that the strategy of the majority party here is to come out piece meal with appropriation bill after appropriation bill and not let anyone, the general public, the President, the rest of the Members of Congress, see what the bottom line is. We should demand, as we should join the President in his demand, that all this be laid out clearly for the public to see and not be hidden behind claims that are really, as my colleague has shown, false claims that it is the minority party that is somehow scheming to spend Social Security, as preposterous as that may sound.

Mr. HOLT. And in this current fiscal year, which began in the beginning of this month, we were supposed to be spending a lower amount of money, but we are spending at last year's rates. That is what the continuing resolution means. If we are spending at last year's rate, we are spending Social Security money now. And we can use any gimmicks we want to talk about it, but the point of fact is we set a goal for ourselves, Republicans and Democrats. We said it would be advantageous for us to take this Social Security tax money that is collected and use that to pay down the debt. If we did that, we would not only shore up Social Security, but it would result in lower interest rates, which of course would be more money in the pockets of every American, far more than would come from these crazy tax cuts, for most Americans, that is. Now, for some very wealthy Americans in some very special situations, maybe the tax cut would help them somewhat more; but for most Americans paying down the debt would help us. And so we set this goal of not using Social Security. But the majority party has been unable to get their appropriations bills done this year. They have strung them along and strung them along, and pretty soon the end of the fiscal year came and we had to go into a continuing resolution. The result is not only are we not laying out the full financial picture for the country so that the President can make his decisions of what bills to sign and which bills to veto, but the American public does not know where we stand. From their point of view it must look very much like a shell game. And that is the result of these budget gimmicks. And it just further erodes public trust in government, which is what many of us are fighting so hard to try to restore. It is a shame. It is a shame that we have come to this state. But I hope in the next week or two the other side will come to their senses and will try to bring us back on an even keel with straightforward accounting.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would just like to follow on the comments of my friend from Oregon. These budget gimmicks that the gentleman has been talking about can be used to explain that, well, maybe we are adhering to the caps that were part of the Balanced Budget Agreement, maybe we have not dipped into Social Security, but in point of fact, let me give my colleagues a very simple explanation of why we are now doing what the majority party claims we are not doing. We are spending Social Security because we are operating now under a continuing resolution, are we not?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Jim Gratton, who has served the labor movement in a variety of capacities for 44 years. Mr. Gratton has led local union members as business manager of Local Union 400 and as president of Monmouth/Ocean Building Trades. In 1974, Mr. Gratton negotiated a maintenance agreement for the building trades at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Prior to this agreement there was no union involvement in any maintenance or shut down work. Mr. Gratton also went to work negotiating the development of a second nuclear plant at the Oyster Creek site, and the project's labor agreement went on to set the standard for such agreements across the country. Under Mr. Gratton's leadership Local 400 grew in the 1970s and 1980s. He worked to establish a residential program that enabled the local unions to have greater control of its jurisdiction. His administration promoted both an annuity fund to secure better retirement packages and a Trades Assistance Program to aid union members suffering from drug and alcohol abuse. Recognizing the need for qualified linemen, Mr. Gratton convinced Northeast Apprentice Training program to use Local 400's property as the site for their school. Line apprentices still learn their basic skills at this facility. He also promoted the Monmouth and Ocean Development Council and received their ``Man of the Year Award'' in 1992. He is the 1998 recipient of the Alliance for Action's Silver Gull Award. In 1998 Jim retired from his IBEW positions and from the presidency of the Monmouth and Ocean Building Trades. During his three decades of leadership his union organizations grew in both size and stature. He serves as a model for labor leaders in our state. Currently Jim remains active in rebuilding and revitalizing Asbury Park, the Charter city of his Local 400. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Gratton's community service. I extend to him my gratitude, and the best of luck in any future endeavors.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2561, the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill. There are a number of good things in the bill and I applaud the Members of the Subcommittee for their efforts. I applaud the inclusion of $165 million to boost the military pay raise to 4.8 percent, increasing the 4.4 percent raise that was funded in the FY 1999 emergency supplemental. While I intend to vote for the package today, I remain extremely concerned about the manner in which this bill fits into the overall budget picture and about the number of budgetary gimmicks included in the legislation. The bill is $3.8 billion over the President's request. The bill provides $267.1 billion for various defense programs in FY2000, $269.7 billion if spectrum asset sales are excluded. Of this amount, $7.2 billion of routine Operation and Maintenance appropriations are designated as ``emergency'' for budget scoring purposes, and an additional $10.5 billion in outlays are not counted under the budget caps due to ``directed scoring'' to the CBO by House leadership. While it is not clear if the President will sign this bill, I am hopeful that he will examine this legislation in the context of the important needs our government has left to fund for the next fiscal year.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as record floodwaters receded across New Jersey only weeks ago, the damage toll from Hurricane Floyd inched upward in our state. Surging floodwaters caused several hundred million dollars in property damage and claimed four lives. As officials struggled to cope with thousands of refugees, families were left to deal with contaminated drinking water, highway closures and lingering phone and power outages. Nine of the counties hardest hit by Floyd have been declared federal disaster areas--including Hunterdon, Middlesex, Mercer, and Somerset counties in my district. I was able to see firsthand the damage that the hurricane caused. In Lambertville, I toured the Middle School that only days before had 2-3 feet of water flowing through it. Mud covered floors, floating school supplies, and overturned desks scattered the building. Officials there told me they expect the clean-up effort may cost up to $1.5 million. In Branchburg, I watched as families shoveled mud from their basements--their belongings ruined and homes permanently damaged. In my Congressional District, there was water everywhere, but none to drink, as flooding contaminated drinking-water sources. More than 200,000 residents throughout the state were urged to boil tap water before using it. From the scenes of devastation, tales of heroic rescues emerged. In this time of devastation it gives me some comfort to think on those men and women of New Jersey who thought first of their fellow citizens. The inextinguishable spirit of the citizens of New Jersey has burned brightly in the days since this horrible disaster. And it will continue to burn as an example for our nation. However, this spirit alone cannot restore the damage caused by Hurricane Floyd. While the federal disaster declaration is a substantial step forward in helping central New Jerseyans start to put their lives back together, more immediate assistance is necessary. In cosponsoring this Resolution, I have pledged my support to continue to work to restore normalcy to the lives of the victims of the hurricane and to renew their spirits by helping them recover, rebuild, and reconstruct. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me.