Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Disaster Relief Act. This bill brings much needed aid to the residents of central New Jersey. I am concerned that several amendments to H.R. 152 would impair the ability of money in the bill to be spent wisely. The amended bill includes a provision that would block funding that enables coastal communities to develop mitigation plans for future hurricanes and other severe weather events. We should not be limiting NOAA's ability to forecast and respond to hurricanes in an emergency appropriations bill that is designed to respond to a hurricane. I intended to offer to H.R. 152 an amendment that would have lifted the $250,000 cap on Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) that can be used by towns and municipalities to finance critically need infrastructure projects. There are towns in my district that would benefit from upgrades to existing flood management infrastructure, yet are unable to afford the costs associated with these projects. Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order by the House Leadership. While I support strongly passage of H.R. 152, I want to reiterate that our fellow citizens affected by Hurricane Sandy have already waited far too long for help from Congress. In other natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, Congress acted swiftly, and aid reached those in need. And yet, the 112th Congress adjourned before passing a much-needed disaster relief package. The Senate had already acted to pass a well-constructed aid package bill. The only reason that this bill is not law today is that House leadership refused to act. This devastating storm has left many people hurting in many different ways--shopkeepers, homeowners, fishermen, hotel and restaurant owners-- and has damaged the entire economy. H.R. 152 responds to this variety of needs and concerns. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, for yielding but also for putting together a very thoughtful amendment. A lot of thought has gone into this amendment. It is compassionate, yes, but it is thoughtful compassion, not dumb compassion. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. It's a misguided amendment that would strike funding from NOAA's Regional Ocean Partnership grants program. These grants help scientists understand where and how the shoreline has changed, evaluate the long- term effects of storm damage, and prepare mitigation plans for future severe weather events. The whole point is to rebuild better and smarter. The Flores amendment eliminates such funding for coastal mitigation, which means Congress would lose the opportunity to ensure that the money is spent on recovery from this disaster in a smart way that makes coastal communities stronger and safer. It's nonsensical to impair the ability of NOAA to prepare properly for hurricanes in an emergency appropriations bill designed to respond to a hurricane. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey for all the thought that has gone into his amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, this misguided amendment by the gentleman from Georgia would strike funding for the National Weather Service's ground readiness program. Now, the ground readiness program means that weather satellite signals can be collected on the ground and those data can be used in operational models and forecasts. This satellite data is critical for forecasting hurricanes. In fact, the National Weather Service used data from these NOAA satellites to accurately predict the scope and the path of Hurricane Sandy. Now, this amount is a relatively small dollar amount in the overall disaster relief bill, but this amendment is of outsized importance in its misguided intent. A recent study showed that without the polar satellite data from the weather models, the forecasters would have said Sandy would stay out at sea, would not have hit the mid-Atlantic coast. Imagine how much worse the storm damage would have been if the emergency management officials said it would never make landfall. It's hard to overestimate how important accurate forecasts are. Let's accelerate the program, not slow it down. It's completely nonsensical to impair the ability of the National Weather Service to predict accurately. This is reminiscent of that ludicrous proposal a few years ago that we abolish the National Weather Service because there is a successful private cable weather channel. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. ``No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his continuance in office.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the District, and I commend the work of my colleagues on this bill. It has some good features and should help smooth the way for recovery from Hurricane Sandy. The delay in getting this bill and, more importantly, the delay in getting the supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Sandy to the floor has only compounded problems for Sandy's victims in New Jersey and elsewhere. And I wish that this bill had included language removing a real impediment faced by our towns. I'm told that the appropriators, in the legislation coming to the floor tomorrow, are showing unusual respect for House rules and won't use their supplemental appropriations bill to change legislation but only to appropriate funds, so that the standard 65/35 Army Corps of Engineers formula will not be changed. In other words, towns must put up 35 percent of the project cost for the Corps of Engineers to make the repairs that they would make. The construction costs are high. Many towns in my State will not be able to come up with the 35 percent cost share match for a multimillion dollar construction project. But the appropriators aren't authorizers, they say. Well, what we have before us now is coming from the authorizing committee. They could have fixed this, and I wish this bill had been brought up in such a way that we could fix this match, as the President had asked in his request for the emergency funds. This bill should streamline the process, but we should have a 90/10 match so that these towns that are strapped for funds because of the damage of Hurricane Sandy and because they've exceeded their borrowing limits would be able to come up with a smaller amount of money so that the construction by the Corps of Engineers could get underway. I'm happy to see this streamlined process that will get aid to individuals and municipalities in the wake of future storms like Hurricane Sandy. I wish that we could have used this opportunity to fix the 65/35 match and make it a 90/10 match, as the President had requested. That certainly would have helped the towns in New Jersey and Connecticut and New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 41. I am a cosponsor of this must-pass bill and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. FEMA announced yesterday that its ability to pay claims under the National Flood Insurance Program would be exhausted by the second week of January. Congress must act now to approve additional borrowing authority and bring much-needed relief to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have suffered in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy flood- related damages to their homes and property. While I strongly support passage of H.R. 41, I want to reiterate that our fellow citizens affected by Hurricane Sandy have already waited far too long for help from Congress. In other natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, Congress acted swiftly, and aid reached those in need. And yet earlier this week, the 112th Congress adjourned before passing a much-needed disaster relief package. The Senate had already acted to pass a well-constructed aid package bill. The only reason that this bill is not law today is that House leadership refused to act. This devastating storm has left many people hurting in many different ways--shopkeepers, homeowners, fisherman, hotel and restaurant owners-- and has damaged the entire economy. The Senate-passed Sandy relief package responds to this variety of needs and concerns. I urge Speaker Boehner to bring the Senate disaster relief package to the floor without delay.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Well, you've heard it. Our constituents' lives were devastated by the Sandy disaster. It has now been about 9 weeks since Hurricane Sandy brought the winds and the tidal surges. In central New Jersey and Connecticut, in New York, people are hurting. Towns have exhausted their emergency funds and exhausted their borrowing capacity. In other disasters, such as the disaster associated with Katrina or with wildfires or with any number of other natural disasters, this body has acted and aid has been provided quickly. And yet today, the Speaker is going to allow the 112th Congress to adjourn before passing the much-needed disaster relief package. The Senate acted on this bill. The aid package here was well constructed. It was ready. All we needed was a vote. And the delay is significant. It adds significantly to the hurt. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives are on the line. People are living wherever they can. They don't have the shelter. They don't have the businesses. They don't have their lives. And the Speaker just walks away. That compounds the disaster. The delay compounds the disaster. It has been said: Well, FEMA has some money already in their account that will last for many weeks. But we're not just talking about FEMA, we're talking about HUD. More than a billion dollars, actually billions of housing aid. The Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, the Department of Interior, the Agriculture Department for food and emergency watershed protection, the EPA for safe drinking water--all of this was in this well-constructed package. Now, it has often been said that the governing principle of the Republican leadership is ``you're on your own.'' That might actually be a conscientious principle if they really believe in their hearts that your Social Security should be privately invested or you should pay for a college without government help. But this, to say you're on your own after a disaster is inconsiderate. It breaks our trust. It violates an understanding, and it hurts people.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I regret that this bill, like so many of its predecessors over the past several years, does nothing to address some the urgent need for real reform in our intelligence community. I am particularly troubled by the failure of this bill to address the deepening militarization of the Central Intelligence Agency, a process that began long ago but that has accelerated dramatically in the post- 9/11 era. Throughout most of its history, the CIA has--at the direction of successive presidents--veered between two organizational paths. The first, and the proper one, is for the CIA to do what President Truman intended when he created it: to collect information about the world around us, synthesize and analyze that data, and provide it to the executive and the legislature for their information and action, as appropriate. The other path--the one that has caused the CIA and our Nation so much grief--is the path of militarized covert, and not-so- covert, action. Today, it is manifested in a quasi-publicly acknowledged CIA assassination-by-drone campaign on which the Administration has refused to provide information, despite my own request and the request of many other House and Senate members for the information. In the previous decade, we saw what happened when lines of responsibility and accountability for secret programs were fuzzy or not observed. The result was a detainee and interrogation program that was a national embarrassment morally, and an albatross politically with our allies around the world. The not-so-covert ``drone wars'' are on a similar glide path, and this bill does nothing to provide a much-needed course correction for the policy. This state of affairs is all the more regrettable because there are many dedicated professionals working in the CIA and elsewhere in our intelligence community who are forced to implement these questionable programs and policies. Some would agree with me that the entire enterprise is out of control and would benefit from much more focused and effective Congressional oversight. If this bill contained whistleblower protections for intelligence community employees, some of those individuals might well step forward to report what they know, and what they believe needs to be changed. But this bill contains no such protections, ensuring that the chilling threat of job retaliation remains in place. We will not restore true accountability and oversight over the intelligence community until such reforms are enacted, and which are absent from this bill. Accordingly, I cannot support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as the Congress lurches from self-imposed crisis to self-imposed crisis, it is easy to understand why members of the public shake their heads in disgust at the inability of the government to do the important work of America to help Americans. The negotiators of this deal should never have agreed to bargain under a hostage-taking deadline. Of course, for long term economic stability and growth we must have greater balance between revenue and expenditures. That means Congress should pay close attention day to day, month to month, to revenue and to spending and should bring them more into line. That should always be true, though, not just whenever someone says there is a crisis. And say what you will, there is no good reason for a crisis now. The deadline is artificial. This ``fiscal cliff' is the result of a deal agreed to in August 2011 when some congressional members who dislike government tried to prevent the U.S. from paying our debts, and the White House and Congressional leaders allowed them to hold the government hostage and then to impose automatic spending cuts and tax increases in the most thoughtless, ham-handed way. And the negotiators should never have negotiated with hostage takers, or after the debt- ceiling confrontation was past, should never have let the hostage- takers demands live on. As I see it, the big problem with the fiscal package before us today is that it was debated and negotiated on the terms set by the hostage takers in 2011. Instead of talking about what our government needs to do put people to work, to reduce unemployment, to educate Americans, to rebuild our roads and bridges, to stimulate vibrant and innovative industry, to tend to the nourishment, the housing, the cultural well- being of all Americans--and then doing those things--Congress and Administration have spent several months neglecting all the important work in front of us--drought relief, elementary and secondary education act, violence against women act, bridge repair, better transportation, better communication, reliable mail delivery, etc. etc. and instead focusing on such things as whether the marginal tax rate should be 36 percent or 39.6 percent for income earned above $250,000 or $450,000. Why should the President, why should the Democratic leadership in Congress, have agreed to negotiate with hostage takers under contrived, media-fueled deadlines. Why should the President, why should the Democratic leadership in Congress, have accepted the inane premise of the Tea Party and the Peterson Institute that our nation is defined by its debt and that we are in effect a poor, debtor nation and that the government is helpless in the face of that debt. There is no good answer to a bad question. The premise of the deal before us is false, and the Democratic negotiators have been trying hard to find a good outcome based on that false premise. In fact, we do have a long term problem with the debt. We should work to correct it, but also we should recognize that it is long term. Meanwhile we have some immediate problems-- stubborn unemployment, a sluggish economy, crumbling infrastructure, and millions of Americans in need of housing and food. We should not allow our concern for the debt to paralyze our government, and thus prevent action on the immediate, critical problems affecting our people in the here and now. The blatant, sad irony is that dealing aggressively with those immediate problems--the very problems whose solutions are being pushed aside by the artificial, self-imposed debt crisis--also would be the best way of dealing with the long term debt problem. It would be the best way of generating the economic activity and growth necessary to put our people back to work and our debt in its place. This deal was done in the wrong way. The postponed crisis will reappear with the debt crisis and sequestration and tax increases in March, and the President will be in a weaker, not stronger, position to deal with the crisis then. However, I do not want to make the situation worse by weakening the President's hand and weakening the economy by allowing the government so to speak to ``fall off the cliff', so with great reluctance I will support this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. E pluribus unum: one out of many. We help each other. We always have. My district and many around were badly affected by one of the largest storms, by one of the most expensive storms, by one of the worst storms in history. There are thousands of people who are not going back to their homes. They deserve our help. I wish I could speak as articulately and in such a measured manner as our leader did and as others have, but I'm afraid my anger is going to get the better of me. Some weeks ago, someone said to me, You know, you're not going to get help from the House of Representatives because these are blue States. They voted for a Democrat for President. Now, I would like to think--and Mr. King and Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Smith and Governor Christie would like to think--that this is not a partisan matter, but I have to wonder what could be going on here. Why would we not help each other as this House has always done?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 2012, I inadvertently cast a ``yes'' vote for this bill. I intended to vote ``no.'' There is no question that this legislation contains some important provisions that will benefit our troops and their families, including a small (1.7%) pay raise, special pay and bonuses (such as special retention pay for aviators, nurses, etc.), additional funding for family housing and support services, and other helpful measures. I was pleased that the final bill included a provision I authored that creates a permanent National Language Service Corps within the Defense Department. The NLSC currently exists as a pilot program that has recruited more than 1,800 members. To date, Corps members have worked with the Department of the Navy, the National Security Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal agencies. For instance, the NLSC provided translation and interpretation support services to the U.S. Army Pacific for counterinsurgency training in Thailand. Far too few Americans can speak or understand foreign languages, and as a result, we are hampered in participating in global commerce and in defending our national security. The permanent establishment of the National Language Service Corps is a meaningful step toward helping our government meet its foreign language needs. Unfortunately, this bill fails to address some key issues of concern to my constituents. For example, the bill continues funding for an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle--a provocative and destabilizing system that will waste millions more on our failed national missile defense effort. The bill perpetuates a bloated nuclear weapons complex that does not enhance our security and in fact compromises our nonproliferation efforts. Worse, the bill continues to fund our combat operations in Afghanistan, instead of restricting the use of those funds to withdrawal-related operations only. There is simply no reason--military or political--for us to continue the war in Afghanistan. In the broadest sense, this bill continues the acquisition programs and policies that have been in place for decades. This bill does nothing to fundamentally reshape and downsize our armed forces. It continues Cold War weapons acquisition programs that have no place in a 21st century where the threats are vastly more diffuse and dispersed. For all these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I did not return to Washington in time on Monday December 17, 2012 and missed two votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 4606--To authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas pipelines in Glacier National Park, and for other purposes (rollcall 627), ``yes'' on S. 3193--To make technical corrections to the legal description of certain land to be held in trust for the Barona Band of Mission Indians, and for other purposes (rollcall 628).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the forty years of service that the New Jersey Council for the Humanities has provided for my constituents in the twelfth congressional district and for residents throughout New Jersey. It is only appropriate that I take time in advance of October, National Arts and Humanities Month, to honor the important work that the Council does to engage New Jerseyans in discussions of history, literature, and culture that help residents reflect on our past and think critically about our future. When Congress and President Johnson created the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) in 1965, they laid the groundwork for improving the study of the diverse heritage, traditions, and history of our nation. Indeed, the NEH has opened many doors for scholars and cultural institutions such as museums, libraries, and archives to further their research and share their findings. Since its founding, the NEH has helped Americans better understand America. Yet, upon signing the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, President Johnson remarked wisely ``. . . these actions, and others soon to follow, cannot alone achieve our goals. To produce true and lasting results, our States and municipalities, our schools and our great private foundations, must join forces with us.'' In 1972, Congress heeded President Johnson's insight, and amended the Arts and Humanities Act to establish state Councils that would facilitate public programming unique to each state. The New Jersey Council for the Humanities began its efforts in 1972 to provide an endless stream of programming that invites New Jerseyans to consider the past and think creatively about our future. By providing financial support for conferences, documentaries, publications, lectures, and forums, the Council offers the opportunity to learn more about our shared history and the traditions of others without cost to New Jersey residents. The New Jersey Council for the Humanities enables New Jerseyans to become consumers of history, informed commentators on our present, and architects of our future. As a former educator, I am grateful for the New Jersey Council for the Humanities' dedication to enhancing history education in our schools. In an age of narrowing school curriculum across our country, arts, foreign language, history and other subjects have been pushed aside by the intense focus on tests and tested subjects. To help keep history alive in our classrooms, the Council offers an annual seminar known as the ``Teacher Institute'' for New Jersey primary and secondary school teachers to refresh and deepen their knowledge on key moments and themes of our past. The Teacher Institute has helped over 3,700 educators gain exposure to rich new content and benefit their students by bringing their knowledge back to the classroom. Thanks to the New Jersey Council for the Humanities, we are graduating more well-rounded and historically aware students. In addition to enhancing the appreciation of humanities in the classroom, the Council promotes lifelong learning in public and private life. The New Jersey Council for the Humanities' extensive programming not only benefits school teachers and their students, but also writers, publishers, hospitals, libraries, civics groups, and colleges and universities in every corner of New Jersey. I have heard from many of my constituents who inform me that the Council makes our community a better place to live. One resident in Monroe who works with senior citizens, for example, expressed to me that the state humanities councils advance ``the mental and intellectual well-being of our seniors.'' A local middle school teacher shared with me that despite having served on the faculty of a major research university, her knowledge to share with students ``was deepened'' by the Council's Teacher Institute. Others have conveyed the depth and strength of the Council's Horizon Speaker's Bureau, which provides educational lectures on topics ranging from the legendary Jersey Devil to Shakespeare's Hamlet, and to the U.S. Constitution for thousands of New Jerseyans every year. Simply put by a constituent from Lawrence, ``the state [C]ouncil is the neighborhood face of the humanities.'' My own experiences with the New Jersey Council for the Humanities have paralleled the positive testimonials constituents have shared with me. Each year, I eagerly await the Council's announcement of the Book, Teacher of the Year, and Lifetime Achievement in the Humanities Awards. By honoring the recipients of these distinctions, the New Jersey Council recognizes exemplary work in the public humanities that has made a significant and lasting difference in the lives of New Jerseyans. Previous award winners include Dr. Kwame Anthony Appiah in 2011 for his book The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen, Sylvia Nasar in 1999 for A Beautiful Mind, and Neil Baldwin in 1996 for Edison: Inventing the Century. I am proud to display in my Congressional office a collection of many of the past New Jersey Council for the Humanities Award winners, including works by twelfth congressional district constituents such as historian James McPherson, novelist Joyce Carol Oates, and the late poet and translator Robert Fagles. The New Jersey Council has been dedicated for forty years to promoting public knowledge and love of New Jersey's rich history and culture. I look forward to the years to come when the New Jersey Council for the Humanities will continue to build upon its activities of the past forty years and continue to support and foster the exchange of ideas that creates a thoughtful and engaged society.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. As we've heard the gentleman from Maryland say many times, ``Representative'' is not just a title. It's our job description. We need to hear from our constituents. And our constituents have told us over and over again this year what they want. They want middle class tax relief. They want a farm bill. They want the postal service fixed so it can pay its bills. They want passage of the Violence Against Women Act. It's a long list of things that they feel we can do to help Americans. We've had an opportunity to hear from people because the leadership sent us home a month and a half ago where we could hold town meetings while they allowed us to do nothing here. We heard from our constituents very clearly--not just from a small segment, not just from a few special interests, not just from a few percent for whom everything seems just fine, thank you. But we heard from all sorts of Americans who say, Help. Please. Get to work. You've heard this is the least productive Congress in a generation, in a long generation; and that's by design. The majority sets the schedule. They scheduled very few days in session, very few committee hearings, very few markups. So even the do-nothing Congress, as my friend from Missouri said, even the Congress that Harry Truman called the do-nothing Congress was much more productive than this one. So why did the majority close up shop and head home until after the election? Well, the answer I think is pretty clear: they want to campaign. They've decided with their dismal record they need a little more time to campaign, a little time to explain why they cast 302 votes to limit protections for clean air and clean water and good land. They need a little more time to explain why the farm bill, to help the areas that have been hit by drought, to help the farmers that need crop insurance, hasn't been passed. To be sure, it's going to be hard to campaign on the record that they've compiled, and maybe they need a little extra time. We don't need extra time to hear from our constituents about their needs and what they want us to do. I stand with my friend Mr. Hoyer and all of us on this side of the aisle, to return to Washington any day, any night to do the work that the American people hired us to do--to be their representatives.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 117) to fund the federal government through March 2013. This bipartisan spending bill staves off the devastating costs recommended by my Republicans colleagues and instead continues the funding levels for the operations of federal agencies at last year's levels. I am pleased that this measure extends the services on which New Jersey families rely such as Small Business Administration, SBA, loan guarantees, Veterans Administration, VA, disability claims, and natural disaster relief. It preserves the necessary funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. This compromise is by no means perfect, however. I am disappointed that this measure does not take any steps to invest in innovation, improve math and science education, make college more affordable, or help grow industries such as biotechnology and clean energy. I regret that this bill freezes the pay of hardworking federal employees who have already had years of pay freeze. Under this spending bill, no new programs will be funded. Unfortunately, this means that none of the important new programs--such as anti-distracted driving campaigns-- authorized in the recently passed MAP-21 transportation bill can begin.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the ranking member on the committee. This Republican-led House has already cast 302--soon to be more-- anti-environmental votes in this Congress. In our last week in session before the election in November, our eighth day in session since the beginning of August, the majority now wants to use this precious time when we should be dealing with the Nation's economic problems. Instead, we are planning to consider legislation on the floor that will add to this total of anti-environmental votes. No, there is no war on coal, not by the Obama administration or anyone else. Mr. Markey has explained the market forces at work. But there clearly has been a concerted effort. One out of every five votes we've taken in this Congress has been to reduce protections on our air, on our water, on our open spaces, et cetera. This bill includes a coal ash title that endangers the health and safety of thousands of communities, provisions that would increase the levels of toxic mercury, lead, and cancer-causing toxins in the air and water. There are provisions in this bill that gut the Clean Air Act. Why the House would waste precious time redebating these bills and voting on them once again is a mystery to me and I think must be a mystery to anyone who is observing the behavior of this House of Representatives. It only underscores the fact that the House Republican majority is more focused on passing message bills than addressing the real issues that face our Nation. The remaining new title of this bill consists of a bill that was approved in the Resources Committee back in February. It purports to halt an ongoing effort by the Obama administration to rewrite a so- called ``midnight regulation'' that was adopted by the Bush administration on mountaintop removal mining. This Bush midnight mountaintop removal rule weakened a Reagan-era regulation by increasing the ability of the mining companies to dump mining waste in streams. Yes, believe it or not, they want to weaken those protections. It's another provision of this bill before us today. The Obama administration has signaled that it intends to revise the Bush administration regulation to better protect local communities, to better protect public health, to better protect the water. However, this effort is only at the very early stages, and the Obama administration has not even issued a proposed rule. This is unnecessary, going in the wrong direction, and weakening environmental protections for this country. Those are reasons enough to oppose this bill.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is drafted so broadly that it's likely to cause real damage. It would prevent the Interior Department from issuing nearly any new regulation under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The bill would prevent the Interior Department from undertaking any of a number of actions that it is considering to ensure that mining operations are safe for the workers and for the public and for our environment. I filed an amendment to narrow the scope of this title, but the majority would not make it in order. Furthermore, H.R. 3409 would completely paralyze the Office of Surface Mining, which is responsible for protecting the citizens and workers, and we should not limit this agency when it comes to worker safety. This bill would threaten public health by blocking the critical Clean Air Act regulations that limit dangerous air pollutants, as I said earlier, including mercury in the air that we breathe. This is an irresponsible bill; it is unnecessary. We have important work to do to shore up this economy and to create jobs. Why in the world we are doing this is beyond anybody's reasonable explanation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us a bill that tells the American taxpayers to take a hike--not to take a walk in the woods, but to give up their place in any decisionmaking, to get lost, a hike from democracy and engagement in our government--because H.R. 5544 has a provision that would bar all Americans, including Native Americans, from being provided the information about the land exchange to take place and that would bar them from participating in the democratic process of being able to voice their views about the disposition of their property. My amendment would restore public participation in the development of this proposed land exchange by striking language that would subvert proper environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. H.R. 5544 continues what we have seen elsewhere on this floor and on the Resources Committee that can only be called an attack on NEPA. I wonder what my colleagues have in mind, why they have such a strong knee-jerk reaction to this bipartisan initiative that was signed into law by President Nixon, you may recall. Whatever any of my colleagues may think about the advisability of the underlying bill and the exchange that is proposed here, whatever that exchange may be, I would think my colleagues would at least want this to be done with transparency, full knowledge and public participation. Public participation should always be of the utmost concern when planning public land projects, but it is particularly critical for the exchange that is proposed here. We aren't talking about a small land exchange. We are talking about tens of thousands of Federal acres that will be going out of Federal ownership and into State ownership for the purposes of mining and logging. The bill doesn't tell us which parcels will be exchanged. We have no map. We really have no idea. We do know that there are 700 miles of snowmobile trails within the Superior National Forest and that there are thousands of lakes, 77 points of lake access, and 13 fishing piers. We know that hunting is allowed on all of these lands, including lands included within the boundary waters. We also know that no fewer than 25 groups have written in opposition to this exchange, expressing concerns about their ability to participate in what should be a public process. We also know that 2 million hunters and anglers, represented by the Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Association, oppose this bill because, in their words: Hunters have a vested interest because we now have access to these properties--something that's never guaranteed when management begins switching hands. Finally, we know why the State of Minnesota wants these Federal lands. They want the lands to generate receipts for their school trust through mining and logging. So we know some things, but there is much we don't know. There is much that should be brought out to the public. This entire exchange is justified on the State's belief that it is losing $650,000 a year because it can't mine and log lands within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The public deserves to know more about this exchange and to have a voice in the future of these lands. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would ensure that the public can play a role in this exchange if the exchange is to go forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. The chairman must think that it is so inconvenient to deal with a pesky public. Whether this is congressionally mandated or comes about in any way, something of this scale, that of involving the public's land, should involve the public in a very open way in understanding what it will be and in carrying it out. That's all this says. That's all this amendment would do. It would allow the NEPA process, the environmental process that applies to so many things around this country, to apply to this important transaction. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today our nation pauses to remember another September morning very much like this one, bright and sunny, which began as usual for most of us but ended with nearly 3000 of our citizens dead and our nation once again at war. As we do every year at this time, we remember with sorrow and sympathy the lives lost, the families shattered, and the sense of vulnerability many still feel. But we also remember the heroism of the first responders in New York City, Virginia and Pennsylvania, and we remember the heroism of the passengers of Flight 93, who saved countless others by overpowering the hijackers of their plane before it could cause more tragedy in Washington, DC. We also remember the determination and unity of purpose we all felt in the days and weeks immediately after those attacks, a determination that has led to the effective dismantlement of Al Qaeda and the imprisonment or death of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Our determination to remember can be seen in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, which is located on the former site of the Twin Towers and which we dedicated last year. Our determination to rebuild can be seen in the Freedom Tower, now known as One World Trade Center, that is steadily rising above the Manhattan skyline right next to the memorial and museum. There are no words that I or anyone else could ever speak that will assuage the grief and sense of loss sustained by so many, including 700 in my district alone. What we can and must do is remember those lost and rededicate ourselves to rebuilding the country they loved, which in the end is the greatest tribute we could give them. Each of us may never confront a vicious hijacker, but each of us can confront bigotry and division even in our own communities that destroy our commonality of purpose. Let us hope and pray that we can find within each of us the kind of courage as those Americans showed that day.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on this day, as on every day, we should be working toward a better future for America. Yet, by almost any measure, days in session, committee markups held, bills voted on or signed into law, this is one of the least productive Congresses in more than half a century, by design. Everyone knew last year times would be tough, but despite that, the House Republicans who control the schedule scheduled a year of congressional inaction. Their ideology dictates that Congress can and should do nothing. There is work to be done. Where is the jobs agenda? With just days left in this congressional session, let's get to work.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Missouri. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4631. I oppose this bill because it would make significant changes to Federal employees' ability to travel to conferences and meetings. Although I appreciate the sponsors' efforts to ensure oversight on travel expenditures, I'm not sure they realize the impact that this legislation would have on science and technology, which is the engine of American innovation. This bill institutes prohibitions and impediments that would hinder American scientists' ability to collaborate and communicate with scientists at other institutions and laboratories. Now, to be sure, they can probably get around these prohibitions and impediments, but we should not be putting these in place in the first matter. As a scientist, I know firsthand how important scientific conferences and meetings are. The informal conversations, as well as the formal presentations and poster sessions and everything else that goes into it between scientists from different institutions, lead to new collaborations that have the promise of new discoveries. These are not fancy junkets. Now, people often ask students, well, what is science. What's so special about science? Why does it work? Well, it works because one of its fundamental tenets is communication. To be sure, there are various ways to have communication, but scientific conferences are critically important. In a recent op-ed by the presidents of the American Chemical Society and the president of the American Physical Society, they discuss, for example, an anticancer drug that was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists from three laboratories that took place at conferences. This bill would hinder that kind of collaboration. Just about any scientific society in this country can give you examples where large numbers of federally sponsored researchers go off to conferences. It happens in plasma physics. It happens in microbiology. It happens in AIDS policy and AIDS research. In a time when the Federal Government should be making science a priority, passing a bill that would make scientists jump through hurdles and get around impediments would, in fact, weaken American scientists, weaken American science, and impede the ability of American scientists to innovate. That is not wise. This is not the way to build our economy. We should be investing more in research and development, which means, of course, investing in scientists, but also investing in their ability to pursue science. We should be spending more on international conferences. We should be spending more on national conferences. We should be spending more on national laboratories. We should be spending more on public and private research and development for the sake of jobs, for the sake of our economic vitality, for the sake of the quality of life of Americans. This is not the way to build our economy and to foster innovation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''