Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Do you think that the Congress of the United States might do better if we don't meet in person, if we stay home and get on conference calls every once in a while and phone in? I don't think so. I think the gains that are made in good legislation that come from conferences, as we gather here for votes, on the side between votes, is invaluable. The same can be said many times over for microbiology, for plasma physics, for--let's go through a long list.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8, which should be called the Protecting America's Wealthiest 2 Percent Act of 2012. Our main priority in the House of Representatives must be to support middle class families. It should not be to protect the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans by extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for them. As a body, we should work together to make our nation's tax system more equitable while continuing to support the middle class. I opposed the so-called Bush tax cut plans in 2001 and 2003. In the aftermath of these cuts, federal revenue fell, real GDP grew at a rate less than 2 percent and the cumulative deficit grew to $6 trillion. Today, I rise in support of the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8 which extends all income tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans and asks the richest households to contribute to deficit reduction by reverting back to the 1990s rates--a decade in which the workforce grew by 22 million jobs and saw the largest budget surplus in recent history. My colleagues across the aisle have shown that their priority is to protect only privileged Americans by giving away tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country and continuing to ignore the needs of middle class families. Republicans are holding tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses hostage to deficit-busting tax breaks for the top 2 percent, while rewarding Big Oil, special interests, and corporations that outsource American jobs. H.R. 8 would raise taxes on 25 million American families by an average $1,000 by ending vital expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit and end the American Opportunity Tax Credit entirely. These 25 million families are earning the least and who rely on these credits to put more wages in their pockets, increase access to child care services, and make college more affordable. It would add to the deficit by extending tax breaks for the highest- earning households, giving millionaires a tax break savings of $160,000 annually. Republicans are holding the middle class hostage by demanding tax cut extensions for the richest 2 percent and by adding $50 billion to the deficit. What is even more egregious is that H.R. 8 would disproportionately affect those military families who sacrifice every day to protect our freedoms. The American middle class, including our military families, would see a tax increase on January 1, 2013 if we fail to come to an agreement on taxes for the top 2 percent. I want to protect hard working Americans, including our military families. I support making sure everyone, especially the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, pays their fair share. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8, which is identical to The Middle Class Tax Cut Act which passed the Senate last week. The Middle Class Tax Cut Act would preserve the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans and only increase taxes on the richest 2 percent who earn the most and have seen the largest tax breaks over the last ten years. We can act now. If we pass The Middle Class Tax Cut Act today we can keep taxes low for the 98 percent of Americans who rely on the tax breaks and credits extended in this bill. Then we can separately debate the issue of extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Instead, the majority will adjourn today until September having done nothing to protect the middle class or to make sure everyone pays their fair share. Under the Republicans' plan, 30.5 percent of tax cuts going to my home state, New Jersey, would go to the richest 1 percent, and 45.8 percent would go to the richest 5 percent. That is 76.3 percent of tax cuts going to the top 6 percent of state residents, leaving 23.7 percent of cuts for the remaining 94 percent of New Jerseyans. I strongly support The Middle Class Tax Cut Act and the Democratic Substitute to H.R. 8. We can no longer afford to continue giving the biggest breaks to those who need them the least. It's time to put money back into the pockets of hard working Americans.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3397, sponsored by our Chairman Hastings, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to adjust the fees for private cabins on national forest lands. We remain concerned about the impact this legislation may have on cabin owners of modest means, of which there are many. It appears that in order to reduce the fees for owners in the highest bracket, fees on the middle- and lower-value cabins would have to increase. Many members of the committee do not object to the passage of this legislation at this time, although I wanted to bring up some personal concerns about the inequity of the new fee system. I'd like to work with the chairman and the cabin owners and the other body to achieve an equitable solution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2706, the Billfish Conservation Act, seeks to ban imports of foreign-caught marlin, sailfish, and spearfish into the United States. Now, these fish, as we know from prized photographs of our friends and many of our past experiences, are highly valued as recreational game-fish and serve as the top predators in ocean ecosystems--the so-called lions and tigers of the sea. While this bill is a small step forward and has the support of recreational fishing and commercial interests, we can and should do much more for the conservation of billfish. Specifically, developing and using more selective commercial fishing gear, cracking down on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and passing legislation, such as the bill recently introduced by our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), to combat seafood fraud would provide even more protections for these iconic species. However, I and most of my colleagues, I believe, support passage of H.R. 2706; and we hope that it is a precursor to further action on this important issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the chairman if he has additional speakers?

Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6007, the North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act, provides a very specific and necessary--we believe-- exemption to the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. The Lacey Act is vital to our Nation's interests because it prevents the spread of undesirable, injurious species such as zebra mussels. In fact, zebra mussels may be a textbook example, a poster child for injurious introduced species. These mussels are the bane of many a power plant or municipal water operator. Millions are spent each year just to keep intake and outflow pipes clear of these creatures. They harm our fisheries by crowding out native species and taking all their food, and they're driving many native mussels to extinction. H.R. 6007 would allow the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority to transport water that contains zebra mussels from the Oklahoma side of Lake Texoma to Texas. However, all the water would be kept in closed conveyance systems, we are assured; and we are further assured that all water would be fully treated, with all zebra mussels being fully removed before being released into any water body. The biologists, the limnologists, the hydrologists, the water engineers assure us of these things. I do want to emphasize that zebra mussels are pernicious and insidious. I am loathe, and I think many of my colleagues are loathe, to weaken or seek exemption from the Lacey Act, which controls invasive species. However, Texas needs access to this water, and the aforementioned entities have a comprehensive plan for ensuring, we are told, that these water transfers will not cause zebra mussels to spread. So for these reasons, and with this understanding, I rise in support of H.R. 6007. I do strongly urge that this bill, which is put forward as a remedy for a very difficult and unique situation, should not be used to set any precedent for granting exemptions to the Lacey Act or in any way weakening our protections against invasive species. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleagues from the Natural Resources Committee for working with me to bring this bill to the floor today, our bipartisan bill, which is the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act. I was pleased to work with Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop and Ranking Members Markey and Grijalva to move this bill through our committee, and I would like to thank the majority and minority staffs for their hard work. The bill before us today reauthorizes the American Battlefield Protection Program, which is a competitive grant program that matches Federal dollars with private money to preserve historic war sites. H.R. 2489 builds on the success of the Civil War Battlefield Protection Program, which has preserved Civil War battlefield sites. The legislation also expands the grant program to include over 670 historic battlefields and associated sites from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Since 1996, when the Battlefield Protection Program was first authorized, the program has helped preserve many important sites, including, for example, the Fort Gregg, New Market Heights Battlefield in Virginia. In fiscal year 2011, a protection grant helped preserve a 7.2-acre property best remembered because of the unquestioned valor of the African American Union soldiers who fought there. There are many other examples that I could point to: the Wilderness Crossroads, the Reynolds Tract, Perryville Battlefield in Kentucky, the Slaughter Pen Farm, Fredericksburg Battlefield in Virginia, and so forth. H.R. 2489 would allow the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and willing sellers--and I do want to emphasize that point--to protect the most endangered historical sites, and to provide up to half the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. From Lexington, where the shot was heard around the world, to Gettysburg, where Lincoln brilliantly summarized the description of the conception and proposition of our Nation, the stories of the American Revolution and the Civil War bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our Founders. Unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl, and unplanned commercial and residential development are constantly encroaching on many of the significant battlefields of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. This encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to the preservation of these historic sites. History is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it, and live it, and the battlefields of the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War provide a unique opportunity for Americans to experience where and how the epic struggle for our Nation's independence and identity took place. In my home State of New Jersey, there are more sites of military engagements than in any other State. More military engagements were fought in New Jersey than in any other State. New Jersey played an influential role in the War for Independence. I was pleased to join Representative Frelinghuysen and Senator Lautenberg, and the rest of the New Jersey delegation, in establishing some years ago the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area in our State. The Crossroads Association has made enormous progress toward promoting our State's rich heritage, and the bill before us today, I think, is vital for organizations like Crossroads in New Jersey and others to perform their important work. As the Civil War Trust said in their letter supporting this legislation: Preserving these American historic treasures is essential to remember the sacrifices our ancestors made to secure our freedom and independence, and to preserve our Republic. Historical sites, once lost, are gone forever. They exist only on the pages of books and in fading memories. We must act to preserve these valuable sites while we still can. Approving this bill will demonstrate that the Members of this House can work together. Historic preservation is not a Republican issue, not a Democratic issue. Historic preservation is an American issue because it is our shared history that we are working to preserve and to protect. I thank the majority for working with me on this bill. During the 111th Congress, similar legislation was twice approved by this body with near unanimous support. In this Congress, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act is again enjoying bipartisan support, and I certainly hope the other body will act promptly so that we can get about the work of preserving these sites. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2489, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amended version of H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction & Syria Human Rights Act. I am a co-sponsor of and voted for the original version of this bill when it was on the House floor in December 2011. Since that time, the bill has been refined in the Senate with language designed to essentially paralyze Iran's oil sector, which has already seen its oil exports fall by 60 percent as a result of sanctions imposed to date. The improved bill before us even more broadly targets Iran's oil sector and anyone who tries to do business with Iran in this area. It will prevent the Central Bank of Iran from repatriating funds from the sale of oil as part of bilateral trade agreements Iran may have with other nations. Indeed, prior sanctions passed by this Congress have caused India and Turkey to deny Iranian banks licenses to set up branches in those nations. Finally, this bill includes sanctions targeting Syrian officials responsible for the massacres in that nation since the Syrian people began their uprising more than 18 months ago. These are important steps we must take as part of a strategy to use every means available to compel Iran to meet its international obligations. Iran must renounce any effort to acquire nuclear weapons, and that claim must be verified through thorough, intrusive on-site inspections and monitoring. I should also note that yesterday, President Obama announced a fresh set of sanctions against Iran's energy and petrochemical sectors based on existing sanctions law and his own authority as president. As President Obama noted this week, ``The United States remains committed to a diplomatic solution, but the onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations. If the Iranian government continues its defiance, there should be no doubt that the United States and our partners will continue to impose increasing consequences.'' The government of Iran should understand that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is sending the same message by passing H.R. 1905. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleague a recent article by my good friend Richard Leone, the former President of the Century Foundation. In his article ``The Unfinished War'' Leon reminds us all that ``by ignoring the poor we undermine the welfare of everyone in the 99 percent living from pay check to pay check.'' As Congress debates taxes, government investments, and countless other issues, I hope all of my colleagues will keep his sage words in mind. [From the Huffington Post, July 6, 2012] The Unfinished War Nearly 50 years ago President Lyndon Johnson rallied the nation in support of a ``War on Poverty.'' It was a goal widely accepted as necessary and realistic. While total ``victory'' might not have been unachievable, the effort was embraced and pursued by many leaders of both parties. The Nixon administration, for example, played a key role in advancement of the earned income tax credit and Ronald Reagan reached an agreement with the then Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, to strengthen Social Security's finances for another generation (today, about half of the nation's elderly would fall below the poverty line without Social Security). While Johnson's initiatives and subsequent policies didn't end poverty, they sure made a dent in it. Americans began the 1960s with 22.4 percent of the population living in poverty, but by the early 1970s that percentage had been cut in half. Not unconditional victory, but a major policy triumph nonetheless. Since that time the poverty rate has fluctuated between about 11 percent and 15 percent, reaching the upward proportion during the Reagan years and the lower end of the range during the administration of Bill Clinton. This may seem like a fairly narrow band --unless you're one of the millions who fall into poverty as the nation moves from the bottom of the range to the top. Right now, as we struggle to recover from the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the share of Americans living in poverty is back to levels not seen since 1993. So is a renewal of the war against poverty in the offing? The current balance of political forces suggests that, rather than muster all the weapons we have to fight for the poor, many are willing to settle for uneasy neutrality. This is one ``war of choice'' we choose not to wage. Austerity is the watchword of the day defined somewhat differently but accepted by the mainstream of both parties as the bedrock of policy for the foreseeable future. With lower expectations of growth projected for the next several years and continuing competitive pressures from abroad it is hard for most observers to see an optimistic scenario in which recovery accelerates to the point of leading to a new 1990s style period of prosperity. While this clearly sets limits on what is possible, it also opens up opportunities for those who wish to use the current difficulties as a lever to win arguments that are geared to their core values. Deregulation, weakening of unions, and further cuts in taxes for the wealthy and corporate America are all part of an ideological agenda that seems practical only because of the shifts of political forces and the imperatives of the financial weakness. To be sure there will be resistance to cuts in education, reductions in infrastructure spending, the weakening of Medicaid, and other radical departures from previous policies. But the defenders of the social contract seem at a distinct disadvantage. And what is not present in the debate, indeed has become virtually invisible in the media, is the issue of poverty. In fact, the United States has proven over several decades to be more tolerant of poverty and of homelessness and other associated ills than is the case in other industrialized countries. One can only conclude from the current reality that even discussing the issue of reducing poverty is a luxury. Like support for the arts, it is off the table during these difficult times. Workers have largely lost their past generous instincts about social programs after a generation of stagnant wages. Slightly further up the ladder, families who were until recently considered themselves solidly middle class now are scrambling to maintain their standard of living--and even their jobs. Yet, the United States is still a wealthy country, by all measures among the wealthiest in the world. And it clearly has the resources to provide a decent standard of living for its workers and citizens, its children and elderly. Other countries do so without much fuss. We, on the other hand, have rationalized increasing concentrations of wealth and income as somehow producing results that will be better for everyone. At the same time, our expenditures on the things that might change the circumstances of average Americans are meager by international standards. Elementary and secondary education, an historical strength, is being squeezed by budgetary problems at the state and local level. College aid and support for public higher education is shrinking. And, retraining programs for those who have lost their jobs due to the globalization of manufacturing and markets are nowhere close to what is available, for example, within the European Union. Overall, the United States has achieved levels of inequality not seen for generations and now ranks near the top among industrial nations in inequality. These are not trivial statistics for they reflect very different perceptions of what is important in the world of politics and government. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that those who can afford it pay for our campaigns and reap the rewards while average citizens, frustrated and angry, turn against their government because they don't see it helping them. Facts seem irrelevant; the U.S. has lower tax rates than almost all of the other industrialized countries and government employment has dropped sharply in the past few years, yet the explanation for hard times is that the government is taxing too much and spending too much. In this hostile environment it may be no wonder that new programs to help the poor get short shrift. In this Darwinian environment, we simply can't afford to help them. It's past time to connect the dots and see that by ignoring the poor we undermine the welfare of everyone in the 99 percent living from pay check to pay check. We must revive our generous national nature. And more selfishly come to see that we might find ourselves in their shoes. It may be that the poor will always be with us, but that doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3803, which would make abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or later unlawful in the District of Columbia. Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping to foster job creation and supporting middle class families. Instead, the Republicans once again have chosen to take up divisive social issues and continue their war on women with a radical assault on women's health care. This time, we are discussing a bill that would be a dangerous intrusion into the lives of women as well as the governance of the District of Columbia. Once again, the Majority is asking Congress to play doctor. This bill is an attempt to ban safe, legal, and often medically-necessary abortion services for women in the District of Columbia without the consent of the city's residents or representatives. It seems to me to be even unconstitutional. Even when the Republicans could have received input from District of Columbia representatives, they refused. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton was denied the opportunity to testify during a congressional hearing on this bill that would affect the health and safety of the women in the District of Columbia. Besides being misguided and offensive, H.R. 3803 is dangerous. This bill has only a narrow exception for the life of the woman. This bill has no exception at all for cases of rape or incest. It is clear that this legislation is part of a broader strategy to ban abortion everywhere not just in the District of Columbia. I oppose this anti-choice, anti-woman, and anti-District of Columbia bill and urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous piece of legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 134 to condemn in the strongest possible terms the heinous atrocities that occurred in Aurora, Colorado. But future generations will condemn us if sole response to this massacre is the passage of this resolution. As we watch the news from Colorado with horror and sympathy for the families, we should remember that each day more than 80 Americans are killed by gunfire, unnecessary tragedies. Arguments that gun safety legislation won't help the situation seem to me illogical or blindly ideological. Earlier this week we held a moment of silence for the victims and their families. I hope Congress does not remain silent about the many things we can do to try to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. We must increase our attention to mental health issues, we must support our local first responders with the tools and resources they need, and we must implement real and sensible gun control measures.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, today we are considering the so-called President Obama's Proposed 2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act (H.R. 6168). This legislation, to require the Department of the Interior to conduct the very offshore drilling plan they are already set to implement, has been rushed to floor just so that the majority could vote against it in a political stunt. Even the sponsor of this bill will oppose it. Although I have serious concerns with the DOI's plan to hold lease sales in the Arctic, where spill response capabilities are virtually nonexistent and the merits of opening this pristine environment to drilling remain unclear, the DOI's five-year plan stands in stark contrast to the House Republican plan for offshore oil and gas development. The Republican plan amounts to yet another attempt to open up nearly every last piece of our public lands to drilling and hand even more giveaways to Big Oil. It is important to note that the President's plan does not provide for oil and gas lease sales off of the coast of New Jersey. For these reasons, I will vote for H.R. 6168. But I want the Record to reflect that my vote for this bill is not an endorsement of expanded drilling in the Arctic or seismic exploration off of the coast of New Jersey. I strongly oppose drilling off of the coast of New Jersey and in the Mid-Atlantic and I offered an amendment to the bill we are considering to prevent any new drilling in that region. Along with my Democratic colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, I have offered bills to implement the safety recommendations of the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and to establish a fee on inactive leases as an incentive for oil companies to begin producing on the lands they already hold--of course, applying up- to-date environmental and safety lessons. I also introduced the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act to make sure that oil companies pay the full cost of damages resulting from future oil spills. We should be considering these important reform bill not political stunts designed to let the majority pat themselves on the back about what a good job they are doing to promote the development of the natural resources that belong to all Americans.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like to address a point that the chairman made as he attempted to correct Mr. Markey and said that there have been a number of wind energy bills considered. I think we would gladly count those votes in the column of gutting the national environmental protection act, but wind, no. The wind industry did not support any of those bills that he was talking about or amendments. They are not wind legislation. They are environmental spoilage legislation. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill would allow drilling off the coast of every State in the east coast, from Maine to South Carolina, and off of California and in Bristol Bay, off of Alaska, which is, I might add, one of our Nation's most important salmon fisheries. By reviving long dead lease sales in these fishery areas, they would be reviving sales that the Bush administration issued just 4 days before they left office. Now, it's interesting that tomorrow we will consider Republican legislation on this floor that is intended to prohibit midnight regulations, yet, today, we have a midnight drilling lease sale. They are, in effect, trying to reinstate the Bush administration's midnight offshore leasing plan. So I just want my colleagues on the other side to know that tomorrow, when we are talking about midnight regulations, that they were actually talking about it a day in advance. The other side has also made the point that the administration's offshore drilling plan would reinstate a moratorium. Quite the opposite. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration's offshore drilling plan already, now, makes more than 75 percent of our oil and gas resources available for drilling. They are not doing what the Republicans are saying they are doing. Two months ago, industry analysts were projecting that, by the end of this year, we would have 50 percent more floating rigs operating in the gulf than before the BP spill. It turns out they were wrong. Not by the end of this year. It's already happened. We have about 50 percent more rigs operating in the gulf today. We have more rigs operating in the United States than in the rest of the world combined. And they're saying the President is trying to kill the oil industry. H.R. 6082 ignores the fact that President Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy has successfully reduced our dependence on foreign oil from 57 percent in the last year of the Bush administration to only 45 percent today. It ignores the fact that our oil production is at an 18- year high. It does raise the question of why we have this legislation in front of us at all if not to maybe embarrass the President. But, no, the President will not be embarrassed by the facts, and I hope we will deal with the facts here. This legislation is unnecessary and unwise--unnecessary because the drilling is taking place, and unwise because the other side wants to strike all of the environmental protections that, rather than weakened, should be strengthened. Later we will be considering an amendment that I will offer to strike the language from the underlying bill that requires the Department of the Interior to conduct a single multisale environmental impact statement for all new areas opened for drilling. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that this legislation talks about drilling from Maine to South Carolina, off California and in Alaska. And they propose to say a single environmental impact statement will deal with that? Well, that's like the environmental impact statement that applied to the BP drilling in the gulf that talked about walruses. Yes, because they were using the same environmental impact statement that they had used in Alaska previously. No, the protection of the environment requires a little more attention than that. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling is occurring in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Also, later, we will be considering an amendment that I will offer that has to do with the royalties that will be collected--or should be collected--from offshore drilling. The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain of Americans at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. And this legislation that is brought to the floor by the Republicans here wants to allow them to drill in many places without paying any royalties, without paying a fee to the taxpayers for the oil that the taxpayers own. Right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced without paying a penny of royalty. That should be changed. My constituents--and I think the constituents of any Member of this House--would say it's only fair that these oil companies pay for what they use. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, in 1969, many in America encountered the phrase ``oil spill'' for the first time. Off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, there was what has now become the granddaddy of oil spills. Currently representing that area and those beaches is our good colleague. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is a new member of the committee, but who is one of the most energetic and informed members of the committee and passionate about preserving a healthful environment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, before the gentleman begins, may I ask the time remaining on each side?

Mr. HOLT. At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who, on the Appropriations Committee and Interior Appropriations, is a champion for the environment.