Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Reclaiming my time, having served on the Intelligence Committee until this year for a number of years, I am very much aware of the constraints that are sometimes placed on the agencies by lots of reports due on lots of dates. I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to see that we get this estimate done in the most constructive way. With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I would urge my chair to reconsider after he has read this amendment and support us in the passage of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as Hurricane Irene roared through the East, central New Jersey braced for the winds. Our towns and homes were battered by the winds and experienced even more damage from the water. Our thoughts and our efforts are with those people injured and harmed, and our heartfelt sympathy goes to those who lost loved ones, including the family of Michael Kenwood, a rescue worker who died on duty. Today, water is now coming back to exact further vengeance with even greater floods in some areas in New Jersey. Many are helping, including FEMA--yes, a government agency. Whether it is a natural disaster, a terrorist attack or economic hardships, Americans pull together as a Nation. It is unwise for anyone to suggest that people are on their own to deal with a natural disaster or to find work.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. I thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and their staffs for their work to produce this reauthorization bill that makes a good deal of progress from the existing law. I share many of the concerns of our colleagues who want to see even more improvement in the accountability, equity and transparency of charter schools as we continue to move the bill forward. I have a simple amendment today in this bill that reauthorizes the Charter School Program. My amendment encourages the Secretary of Education to award a priority for green school building practices to ensure that any Federal investment in charter school facilities would improve the energy efficiency and environmental advantages of those schools. Energy bills are the second highest operating expenditure for schools after personnel costs. So we must do all we can to help schools implement green building practices and reduce their energy costs. My amendment will help ensure that schools spend educational resources on educating students rather than heating and cooling inefficient buildings. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 30 percent of energy consumed in buildings is used unnecessarily or inefficiently. By using green building techniques to eliminate areas where energy is used unwisely and is wasted, a school's operating costs can be reduced significantly. A dollar wasted on inefficient heating is lost forever. A dollar invested in a child will pay dividends forever. The U.S. Green Building Council supports this amendment and in a letter to me they wrote: ``On average, green schools save $100,000 per year--enough to hire two new teachers, buy 200 new computers, or purchase 5,000 new textbooks.'' They go on to note that green schools don't cost more, but in fact can be built at or below regional cost and operated within existing facilities' budgets and save money. Now, I'm disappointed that the bill we are considering today reauthorizes only charter school programs. We should be considering full reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We should be considering a public school construction bill. Assisting local school districts with school construction and modernization would help rebuild and upgrade local schools and create jobs. But I do want to see this amendment included in the bill. It will help schools all across America. It will save energy; it will create jobs; it will improve education. I urge its passage.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining, please.

Mr. HOLT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of the committee reads too much into this amendment. It says, in awarding grants, the Secretary is encouraged to give priority to States that encourage green building practices and certification. In other words, if it certifiably will save energy and thereby save the school district money, it should be encouraged. What in the world could be wrong with that? I would urge my chair to reconsider after he has read this amendment and support us in the passage of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, it seems whenever important decisions are made by a few people inside a room inside the Beltway, ordinary folks are not only excluded from the room but seem to be excluded from the minds of the people in the room. I'm talking about ordinary folks working to keep their heads above water; ordinary folks working to keep their mortgage, keep their homes; retirees living on a fixed income; students hoping to have help in going to college; those who are working to improve people's health and our Nation's energy supply--ordinary folks. What makes anyone think that a supercommittee of 12 people operating in a room inside the Beltway in November is going to do a better job looking after the interests of ordinary folks.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the default debate is, at its heart, a debate between two visions for America. One side envisions rebuilding our country, investing in jobs and education and infrastructure, and rising from the Great Recession as a stronger and more resilient Nation. The other side accepts a pessimistic vision of a weakened America with a shrunken government--a Nation hampered by deep cuts to the safety net and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future. I have no doubt that, in a fair debate, a hopeful vision for America would win out. But the default debate has not been held on fair terms. The Tea Party and their enablers have held America hostage. They have insisted that, unless Congress enacted their radical, ideological agenda, they would force an unprecedented default on America's obligations and thus trigger an economic collapse. From the beginning of this debate, I rejected the notion that America's creditworthiness should be used as a bargaining chip. Yet I was willing to support a balanced, fair deal if that was what was required to prevent a default. Unfortunately, today's deal is not balanced. It is not fair. Most of all, it is not right. The House has voted for vast cuts in government services that ordinary Americans depend on: student loans, unemployment insurance, food safety inspections, highway safety programs, and more. These cuts will force layoffs among teachers, public safety officers, construction workers, and more. These laid-off workers will, in turn, be forced to pare back their spending at their local grocery stores, drug stores, and small businesses, forcing still more layoffs--a vicious circle that threatens to destabilize our fragile economy. We saw in last week's economic reports that job growth has been choked back by cuts in state and local governments. This deal does not help the situation. It hurts the economy. The deal lays the groundwork for another $1.5 trillion in cuts to come, to be negotiated behind closed doors by an unelected super- committee. Given that the first round of cuts will have decimated discretionary programs, these later cuts will very likely focus on Social Security and Medicare. The citizens who will be hurt most are those who have the least voice in our democracy. After all, when a handful of politicians gather in the proverbial smoke-filled room, the interests of ordinary Americans are nearly always left out. Yet although most Americans will sacrifice greatly, the most privileged among us will be immune. Favored corporate interests, millionaires, and billionaires will continue to receive special tax breaks as far as the eye can see. That is not the sort of fair, balanced deal that Americans asked for and expected. As poor as this deal is on its merits, I am even more troubled by the precedent it sets. The Tea Party and their enablers have, by taking the American economy hostage, transformed a routine budgetary authorization into the most dramatic reshaping of government in decades. Today's deal establishes that government by hostage negotiation is a legitimate, effective way to achieve one's political ends. I am frightened by what this means for the future of our democracy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOLT. To follow on the remarks of my good friend from Virginia, I must say, this is almost incomprehensible. The Smithsonian as a collection of museums and zoological park and so forth that my colleague talked about is half the picture, and, indeed, if any of those facilities are closed, there will be a lot of unhappy families from Georgia and Tennessee and Montana and all the 50 States. But it's a lot more than that. The Smithsonian is a collection of research centers that goes far beyond biplanes and folk art and portraits and jewelry and pandas: The Smithsonian astronomical observatory, one of the finest collections of research scientists in the world for understanding the workings of our universe. Barro Colorado Island in Panama, in the middle of the Panama Canal, probably the principal research center for understanding the workings of our biological world. Oh, yes, there would be a lot of unhappy families if this amendment were to go through, but among those 600 positions that would be lost no doubt would be some of the finest scientists in the United States, in fact, in the world, and there would be a lot of unhappy scientists around the world who would wonder, what in the world were they thinking of? What in the world were they thinking in Washington, D.C., when they cut back on these research efforts? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, last month I gathered almost 200 individuals interested in the arts and humanities to discuss National Endowment for the Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts programs. The turnout was impressive. But considering their eagerness to win endowment grants, it was also a reminder of how tight funding is for these critical programs. My friend, poet Paul Muldoon, read some poetry to the attendees and reminded all, in his words, the NEA and the NEH are not properly funded. It is a national disgrace. Now, that was before the amendment that is here tonight that would cut the NEA even further. The NEA and the NEH help ensure a well-rounded education, and result in a well-rounded society. Now, of course the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are different, but they are similar in what they bring to our Nation. The arts and humanities inspire our children to explore their own creativity and encourage positive development in the course of their educational careers. The arts and humanities are a fundamental component of our society and they, indeed, warrant Federal funding. The arts and humanities help us know ourselves as a people. Just a few weeks ago, here on this floor, the House approved a bill that increased the spending for the Department of Defense by $17 billion. The total funding for the endowments is hardly more than a percent of that increase in defense spending that was passed. Talk about misplaced priorities. I'm reminded of the often told exchange between Scientist Robert Wilson, the Director of Fermilab, when he was testifying before the Senate and Senator Pastore. The Senator asked, with regard to a science experiment at Fermilab, whether it would help defend this country against the Soviet Union. Replied Dr. Wilson, no, Senator Pastore, this will not help defend us against the Soviet Union, but it will help make our country more worth defending. This amendment is based on the premise that arts and humanities are a luxury. The author of this amendment to cut the NEA further says America is impoverished. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what would leave America really impoverished is if we strangle the arts and humanities. We've heard what the arts contribute to our economy. The Americans for the Arts, in its report, Arts and Economic Prosperity, details that the arts support more than 5 million jobs and generate tens of billions of dollars in government revenue. Arts are good for our cultural development, yes. They are good for our society at large and good for our economic development as well. I've heard from a number of my constituents on this matter, and nearly everyone has pleaded with me to preserve as much funding as possible for the arts and for the humanities. As one of them said poignantly, ``A Nation without culture is a Nation without a soul.'' I strongly oppose this amendment and other efforts to strangle the arts and humanities in America and to defund the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOLT. As you heard, this appropriations bill provides several hundred million dollars to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Sounds like a lot of money, but it is far less than what is needed for the protection of the environment and of workers for offshore oil and other activities. The Director of the bureau recently testified that these funds that are missing are needed and that their lack will have a direct and immediate impact on the ability of the agency to hire inspection and permitting personnel. It's interesting that so eager is the majority to look after the interests of the oil industry that they ruled out of order our amendment which provides one way to make up for these lost funds, this amendment that I would have offered with Mr. Markey of Massachusetts and Mrs. Capps of California had the amendment been in order. So eager are they to look after the interests of the oil industry that they actually work against the oil industry. So eager are they to look after the interests of the oil industry, that they actually work against the oil industry. The irony is pretty rich here. At a time when the majority is aggressively pushing their oil, oil, oil, drill, drill, drill agenda, they are slashing the very funds that are needed by the bureau to conduct the lease sales and issue the permits and inspect the offshore drilling facilities so the industry can move ahead safely and efficiently. You know, at a time when we are about, according to the majority here, about to require seniors and the poor to pay more for their health care, and the majority is considering drastic cuts to the social safety net and considering trading away critical parts of Medicare and Medicaid, the majority is prepared to hand out yet another subsidy to the oil industry. They refuse to make in order the legislation that would take 0.02 percent, that is two-tenths of 1 percent, of the annual profits of the top five oil companies to replace the missing $35 million in inspection fees. That amount would fully fund the bureau and would ensure that the agency could effectively and efficiently issue the permits and conduct the safety inspections. This is an industry that is making tens of billions of dollars each quarter. As we have heard, BP just today announced more than $5 billion in profit. That is a little bit below expectations, we read, $5 billion in the last 3 months. So as a result, because this amendment is not being made in order, this bill, should it become law, would leave the agency that is responsible for the management, regulation, and enforcement of offshore drilling underfunded, understaffed, and it would leave the public and the workers at risk. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, when Americans think of America, they think of our great resources. Now for Big Oil, that probably means the oil that's found on public lands and off our shores, where they can get it for a song and charge a fortune. But for most Americans, it's the spacious skies and purple mountain majesties. This bill, this legislation that we're considering here now has no appreciation for America's priceless resources. According to the League of Conservation Voters, though, going farther than just beautiful vistas or purple mountain majesties, ``This bill is the biggest assault on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and wild places we hold dear to ever come before Congress.'' Continuing, the Clean Water Network or the American Lung Association or the American Public Health Association or Physicians for Social Responsibility, they all go on to point out that the budget cuts or policy riders in this legislation undermine the laws that protect public health and reduce health care costs for all by preventing adverse health outcomes, including cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, and emergency department visits. It is not just for the beauty of this country, although that might be reason enough to try to preserve all of these things; it is for the health of America's people. This legislation would put children's health at risk at the same time that it would be exempting oil companies from complying with clean air standards. We cannot tolerate this. Unregulated discharge of pesticides into our waterways, withholding funding for wild lands, allowing uranium mining all around the Grand Canyon. Mr. Chairman, this is an unprecedented attack, and not just on those things I've mentioned, not just on lifesaving public health protections and essential pollution control; it's an attack on science as well. This bill includes reductions in funding for the U.S. Geological Survey, research in climate and land use, scientific research, monitoring, modeling, forecasting. Let me give an example: The LandSat 7 satellite just in the past month has been used to track the largest fire in Arizona's history. Yet because of the cuts that would come to pass through this legislation, the data coming from the LandSat system would go unrecorded, unanalyzed, unused. Talk about false economy. And it's an unprecedented attack on our public lands. The largest cut in the Land and Water Conservation Fund that most of the Members of this House have seen in their service. And I must say, that's particularly important to a State like mine, New Jersey. My constituents reside in the most densely populated State in the Union, and yet they've demonstrated again and again with their votes their support for open space preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing their kids, our kids, with safe places to experience the outdoors. Mr. Chairman, there is a long list of reasons, and you'll be hearing still more about why this is terrible legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act,'' which would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, just as it is beginning its work on behalf of American consumers. While its supporters claim this bill is innocuous, it would water down the CFPB's ability to issue consumer protections and subject new proposals to an additional layer of bureaucratic review. It is noteworthy that the Republican majority has brought this bill to the floor one year after Congress passed sweeping reforms and consumer protections for the nation's financial sector, maybe to blunt any press coverage on the launch of the CFPB. With no chance of this bill becoming law, House Republicans are sending a message to big banks and financial institution that they are fighting to protect their interests, not the interests of American consumers. But House Republicans are sending another message--that they still fail to understand the causes of our current economic troubles. If we have learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last several years, it should be that by protecting consumers we can protect the rest of the financial system. It is clear that the consumer credit and housing bubbles of the last decade were the result of unfair and deceptive practices of credit card companies and lenders that steered families into financial products that they did not understand and that they could not afford to repay. Congressional Republicans claim the CFPB will be a cumbersome bureaucracy that will be a drag on the marketplace. All we need to do is look at the CFPB's first reform effort--simplifying the long, tedious paperwork consumers face when purchasing a home down to a short, simple form--to know that Republican claims have no merit. I am hearing different messages from consumer advocates like AARP and the Consumer Federation of America and my constituents. They know that transparency in consumer financial products is long overdue and they support the CFPB. A free marketplace can only function properly if consumers can make well-informed decisions about financial products, whether they are home mortgages or credit cards. The American people deserve a strong, effective CFPB. We should allow it to do its work, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, for 23 years, Congress had the benefit of a really excellent organization, the Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA helped Congress look at the policy implications of new technologies. Then 16 years ago, OTA was defunded. When Congress turned out the lights, they argued that other organizations would provide what OTA did--think tanks, academies, universities. We now have 16 years of evidence that we have not gotten from these other sources what we got from OTA. We need OTA now more than ever, and my amendment would shift a mere $2.5 million into OTA to breathe life back into this important agency that had a great record of improving congressional decisionmaking, preventing tax dollar waste, and generally improving the debate on many policy issues. OTA is still on the books; it was simply defunded and, with this amendment, can be funded again. The money comes from a well-funded, little used trust fund for Capitol building revitalization. The OTA produced thorough, balanced nonpartisan studies on a huge variety of policy-relevant subjects. Listen to some of the reports, all produced by OTA in the years before it was defunded 16 years ago: Adverse Reaction to Vaccines, Retiring Old Cars to Save Gasoline and Reduce Emissions, Environmental Impact of Bioenergy Crop Production, Testing in Schools, Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. Think about it; these studies, a few of the many on issues of great concern to us today, were written before 1995. The OTA was the best tool Congress has had to deal with our inability to look forward, to recognize and comprehend trends, to find perspective in problem solving--in other words, our congressional attention deficit disorder. Sixteen years ago, Congress hoped to save money by cutting OTA, and, in the process, we lost one of our best opportunities to save money by avoiding costly mistakes. It is documented that OTA saved taxpayers several hundred million dollars by understanding the best IT system for use by the Social Security Administration, millions of dollars of savings through better Agent Orange programs, billions of dollars by avoiding a poorly constructed Synfuels Corporation. Now, not every OTA project found favor with everyone. Some in Congress did not like to hear OTA call into question some of the extravagant claims of the missile defense contractors. But history shows OTA was right, and the missile defense folks at the Pentagon have spent a decade working around the problems uncovered. Some in Congress complained that OTA reports did not have the quick turnaround of, say, CRS, but that is just the point. OTA is the antidote to the myopia that comes from our very short attention cycle. OTA never advocated policy solutions; it didn't play politics. These are our jobs, but we need help. OTA was of Congress and for Congress. They knew our language and our decisionmaking framework. That's why our organizations never really filled the void created by the defunding of OTA. If we had a functioning OTA in recent years, I think there's little doubt that we could have been more aware of and better prepared to deal with looming shortages of vaccines, to incorporate new designs for flood control levees, to extend high quality medical care to rural regions, to employee effective techniques for oil spill cleanup, or to reduce the risks of cell phone hacking, to name just a few issues of current interest. The Office of Technology Assistance is not, and never was, a panacea. However, it is the best institutional tool we have had to recognize the policy implications of technology trends, to digest arguments involving technology, to expose some of our own blind spots--in other words, to illuminate and inform our legislating. We in Congress have not distinguished ourselves in recognizing and comprehending trends and implications of technology. Now, most of our colleagues here in this body do not know OTA ever existed. Most Members do not miss it. This shows, I think, just how badly we need it. Always the first step in dealing with a shortcoming is acknowledging that we have it. We badly need OTA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. In answer to your two questions, the first is, as I said, the fact that this body doesn't know that it lacks OTA is the strongest argument of how badly we need it.

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield further?