Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, from the beginning of this debt debate last summer, I rejected the notion that America's creditworthiness should be used as a bargaining chip. Americans from all walks of life are wondering why Congress can't do the job that they sent us here to do: putting Americans back to work and revitalizing our economy. Now, here we are again, only two days into the new session of Congress, and the Republican majority is still playing political games and still trying to have us default on our debts. This resolution may have no chance of becoming law, but those who vote for it are nonetheless voting for default. I urge my colleagues to make the responsible choice: pay our bills, and pay them on time. Instead of engaging in partisanship and manufacturing crises, we should be coming together to fashion effective and bipartisan solutions to the jobs crisis.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 Conference report (H.R. 2055). However, I regret the process that brought this bill to the floor. This bill was posted only hours before it was brought to the floor. No member has read this bill and this is one more time that the Majority has broken its promise to run this House in an open and transparent manner. I am pleased that this bill included the full $40 million that I secured earlier this year for suicide prevention and counseling programs for our active duty, Guard & Reserve, and veteran populations. The suicide epidemic among our veterans--at least 18 take their own lives every day--is a national scandal, and it must stop. This funding will help innovative peer-to-peer counseling programs like the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's ``Vets4Warriors'' get the resources they need to reach veterans in need before a personal crisis becomes another family tragedy. This bill honors our commitment to our ally, Israel, by providing $3.075 billion in direct aid, including $235 million for the continued development of the Arrow and David's Sling missile defense systems. Over this past year, we've already seen that America's investment in another innovative and successful Israeli tactical anti-missile system, Iron Dome, has saved Israeli lives. Had some Republican presidential candidates had their way last year and aid to Israel had been zeroed out, Iron Dome would not have been there to save those Israelis who came under missile attack this year. I am very pleased to see that funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund was increased by $21 million over Fiscal Year 2011. Although the current level of $322.8 million is far below the authorized amount of $900 million this is still an improvement over earlier versions of this legislation. Historic preservation is an important goal, and I am pleased that the National Park Service's Heritage Area program remains funded at the same level for 2012 as was last year. This funding is important for the upkeep and management of various sites of historical interest around the country, including the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area in my district. As a research scientist, I have long supported federal investment in basic research. I am pleased to see that this bill provides for Department of Energy Office of Science $4.9 billion, an increase of $31 million over Fiscal Year 2011. The Office of Science is the nation's primary sponsor of research in the physical sciences and has been integral to the development of dozens of innovative technologies. I am also pleased that H.R. 2055 provides $275 million for the ARPA-E research program, 53 percent more than Fiscal Year 2011. ARPA-E supports high-risk, high-reward research on energy technologies. Funding for ARPA-E directly contributes to the creation of new technologies, new industries, and new jobs, exactly what we need to grow our economy. Further, the conference report provides more than $400 million for Fusion Energy Sciences in the Department of Energy. Although I would have liked to see funding levels of at least $32 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I am pleased that this bill provides almost $31 billion in funding for NIH. I am pleased that this conference report provides $150 million for the Department of Education's Mathematics and Science Partnerships. I have been a leader in Congress working on protecting funding for these partnerships, which improve student achievement in mathematics and science by combining colleges with K-12 school districts in order to support math and science teachers with continued training. I am deeply disappointed that this bill zeros out funding for the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP). FLAP is the only federal program that supports K-12 foreign language education which is critical to our nation's economic and national security. Rather than ending this successful program we should be working to strengthen it. I will redouble my efforts to restore this critical funding next year. This bill rejected attacks on our nation's arts and culture and provides the full $146 million requested the National Endowment for the Humanities and the full $146 million requested for the National Endowment for the Arts. The arts and humanities are good for our society at large and significant contributors to our economic development as well. Another of my many disappointments with this bill is the 17 percent cut to grant programs for firefighters and other first responders. Natural and man-made disasters don't take a holiday, and neither should our support for our firefighters, EMS, and other first responders. This cut is irresponsible, and it will endanger public safety. Unfortunately, the majority insisted on including some controversial policy riders in this appropriations bill. I am disappointed that the agreement includes a provision that would change responsibility for enforcement of the Clean Air Act on the Outer Continental Shelf from the EPA to the Department of the Interior. The EPA has been successfully enforcing the Clean Air Act for over forty years. EPA scientists understand the law and how to keep the air we breathe clean and safe. We must work to ensure that the Clean Air Act is still fully enforced on the Outer Continental Shelf. I am also disappointed that the majority insisted on rolling back successful innovation in the lighting industry by mandating in this legislation that agencies cannot enforce energy efficient standards for light bulbs. Congress has a responsibility to maintain regulatory certainty that encourages the private sector to make needed investments in research, development, and innovation. This policy rider turns back the innovation clock in the lighting industry. Regrettably, the conference report contains $35 million for the United Nations Population Fund rather than the $65 million requested. Yet, I am pleased that it rejects the House Majority's attempt to cut all funding for the UNFPA which provides crucial reproductive-health care, not abortion, to the world's poorest women. The conference report extends a policy rider on the District of Columbia, which prevents the District to spend its local money on women's health care services. Further, the conference report included $5 million for failed ``abstinence-only'' programs, which have been shown to have no long- term positive effects. This is not a perfect bill, but it prevents a looming government shutdown. Further, it provides funding increases for a number of critical programs and rejects many of the dangerous cuts contained in the funding bills that the House previously approved. I support passage of this bill despite its pessimistic view of what America could achieve through more ambitious funding of the programs covered under the bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, just last week I came to the floor and spoke to the need for this body to prevent a tax increase for 160 million American workers. Yet today, the House Majority is actually voting to raise taxes for middle class families. Under their plan taxes go up on January 1, 2012 for 160 million workers, unemployment benefits expire and seniors lose access to their doctors. I am voting to prevent that from happening. They can claim all they want they support tax relief for middle class families, but today they are rejecting the compromise that passed the U.S. Senate with broad bipartisan support and that could be signed into law by President Obama. Instead of helping pass this real bipartisan compromise, the House Majority is claiming they want to help ordinary people even as their actions show otherwise. The American people will pay the price with higher taxes next year. Members of the Majority opposed this tax cut for middle class Americans a year ago and they are even more opposed to its extension now.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this could have been a landmark bill. Instead, it offers our nation more of the same--more spending on programs we don't need, and no rethinking of our priorities. To be fair, there are some good provisions in this bill--a military pay raise, additional funding for programs important to military families. I am pleased that this bill authorizes $216 million for cooperative tactical missile defense programs with Israel like Iron Dome. Indeed, it's astounding that some in the Republican Party have suggested that America should zero out our aid to Israel--a reckless idea that would endanger the security of our best ally in the Middle East. I regret that the conferees elected to continue a series of dubious Cold War-era programs instead of taking this opportunity to do what we must do: rescale our armed forces to meet the real threats we face. This bill authorizes $8.5 billion for 31 F-35 Joint Striker Fighters and $9 billion for missile defense programs. Neither of these kinds of programs will give us the ability to deal with the kind of asymmetric threats we currently face and will likely encounter in the future. It's worth remembering that our Cold War-legacy systems did nothing to stop the 9/11 attacks. They will do nothing to confront the cybersecurity threats we face. They will do nothing to address our imported oil vulnerability, or our strategic minerals vulnerability. Continued funding of these and other Cold War-era programs only proves that the Congress has no intention of seriously rethinking our defense spending priorities, without which we cannot possibly responsibly provide for ``the common defense''. Additionally, this bill should be defeated because it contains provisions that would eviscerate Constitutional protections against indefinite detention. I am not at all convinced by the arguments of proponents of this bill that sufficient changes have been made to the sections dealing with detainees to ensure that no U.S. citizen can be detained indefinitely in U.S. military custody. We need only remember the case of Jose Padilla, the accused terrorist and U.S. citizen who was held in a military brig for years without trial. This bill would do nothing to prevent that from happening again because it does nothing to change the language of the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after the 9/11 attacks. That language makes the President of the United States the sole determiner of who is a member of Al Qaeda, or who may have ``supported'' Al Qaeda, etc. Since there is no way to immediately challenge the President's determination of who is a terrorist, there is no way to ensure that innocent Americans will not be charged falsely with having committed terrorist acts. That is the true problem with the detainee-related implications of this bill. Finally, I cannot support this bill because it does not even mention the recently disclosed scandal at the Dover Port Mortuary, much less take any action to correct the egregious desecration of the remains of hundreds--and perhaps thousands--of our fallen heroes. The initial revelations about the mishandling or desecration of the remains of deceased servicemembers came about through the work of three heroic Air Force employees at Dover. Despite the risk of retaliation from their chain of command, they brought their allegations to the Office of Special Counsel, which ultimately prompted investigations by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Army Inspector General. Separately, a constituent of mine--Mrs. Lynn Smith of Frenchtown, New Jersey--made me aware earlier this year that for at least several years, the unclaimed additional remains of fallen servicemembers were being cremated, mixed with medical waste, and dumped in a Virginia landfill. When Mrs. Smith learned that this had happened to her husband, she suspected immediately that it had happened to others. She was right, as we learned late last month with the Pentagon finally provided a response--albeit incomplete--to my inquiry as to how many servicemember's unclaimed remains had been mishandled in this way. Right now, the number stands at 274. I strongly suspect that number is actually higher. Although the House Armed Services Committee held a briefing with the Air Force secretary and his senior staff in mid-November, this issue is not even mentioned in this bill, which is inexcusable. At a minimum, the bill should've had condemned the Air Force's mishandling of the remains and directed that the Secretary of Defense establish a family advisory panel to make recommendations to the Pentagon and the Congress on how to improve the casualty notification and remains disposition process. Because this bill does not address this issue and the families impacted by it, I will not support H.R. 1540.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I think we should prevent 160 million taxpayers from getting a lump of coal and a tax hike this year, but we should not undermine Social Security. Last year, it was a mistake to take the 2 percent tax cut from Social Security and say we'll cover the losses from general funds. We should not allow a 1-year mistake to become a permanent attack on Social Security and on the livelihood of its beneficiaries. Social Security should not be used as a rainy day fund or a political bargaining chip. It should not be like another government agency that some years has a good budget and some years has the budget voted away. President Roosevelt described it best. He said, ``We put these payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program.'' Now, here's a way to handle the problem and to keep the mechanism of Social Security intact: Make the changes within the existing system. Let's cut the payroll tax for 160 million Americans but make up the lost revenue by temporarily eliminating the cap on wages taxed. As much as we need economic stimulus now, we need Social Security for generations to come.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, instead of creating jobs--which is what the American people want and need from this body--we are here discussing a measure that has no chance of becoming law. Instead of working toward commonsense solutions to solve our jobs crisis and get Americans back to work, we are once again playing political games. Mr. Speaker, we should not allow last year's one-year mistake to become a permanent attack on Social Security and the livelihood of its beneficiaries. Social Security should not be used as a rainy-day fund or a political bargaining chip. It should come as no surprise that President Roosevelt described it best. He said, ``We put these payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.'' Let's cut payroll taxes for 160 million Americans but make up the lost revenue by temporarily eliminating the cap on wages taxed for Social Security. As much as we need economic stimulus now, we will need Social Security for decades to come. What else does this legislation do, Mr. Speaker? It contains irrelevant and controversial provisions like the Keystone Pipeline, which the President has promised to veto. It requires millions of American seniors to pay more for health care, while doing nothing to ask the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share. It reduces by 40 weeks the maximum length of unemployment benefits and cuts completely the benefits for millions of Americans who need this vital lifeline through no fault of their own. This bill cuts funding for preventative health care and endangers the health of our children by blocking air quality standards that will help combat pediatric asthma. It also fails to take seriously the question of Medicare reimbursement to physicians and instead simply puts a temporary patch on a problem that needs long- term reform. But perhaps more important, Mr. Speaker, is to consider what this bill fails to do. This bill fails to address tax relief that could actually benefit middle-class families, expand our workforce, and grow our economy. This bill does nothing to address the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will affect more than 30 million Americans next year. It fails to provide tax relief for our Nation's teachers. It does nothing to address the need to invest in research and development. I have authored legislation to expand and make permanent the R&D tax credit and to promote increased investment in research-intensive small businesses. These measures are proven job creators, yet they have not been brought forward for consideration by this body because the majority has blocked any attempt to include meaningful amendments. This is just another example of how a closed rule produces bad legislation. Mr. Speaker, many of the provisions contained in this legislation make little sense to middle-class families. So why are we here debating it? Why are we wasting time on a measure that is sure to fail? I urge my colleagues to join me in demanding a measure that provides commonsense tax relief for middle-class families, protects Social Security, and helps put the unemployed back to work.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the recent IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program indicates that Iran continues to pursue a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Specifically, the IAEA's November 2011 report noted that Iran has carried out a number of activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. These include efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual-use equipment and materials by military related individuals; efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material; the acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network; and work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components. These are ominous developments that the House simply cannot ignore. I am glad that the House is considering this legislation. I recognize that sanctions like this are crude instruments, but the threatening actions of the government of Iran must be countered. This bill will help increase diplomatic pressure on Iran by further tightening sanctions, particularly on entities associated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is a key player in Iran's nuclear weapons acquisition effort. The IRGC's activities are a key reason why this legislation is necessary. I recognize that this legislation is not perfect. I am particularly troubled by a provision that was added during the committee mark up that would make it extremely difficult for American officials to meet directly or indirectly with some Iranian officials. I vote for this with the expectation that this particular provision will be modified before it goes to the President for his signature. Today we are also considering H.R. 2105, which would strengthen our nonproliferation regime against Iran, North Korea, and Syria. It's worth remembering that Syria had an undeclared nuclear facility under construction at the time it was bombed a few years ago. This bill would impose a series of new constraints on countries that may be thinking about, or are known or suspected to be, supplying proliferation-related technology to any of these three states. One provision would prohibit U.S. nuclear cooperation with a country that is assisting the nuclear program of Iran, North Korea, or Syria, or is transferring advanced conventional weapons to such countries. I regret that these bills are necessary. I wish that our past peaceful, diplomatic efforts had produced changes in their proliferation-related behavior. Unfortunately, they have not. These rogue regimes are willing to tolerate considerable international isolation as they continue to pursue prohibited weapons programs. But I believe there is a point at which the diplomatic and economic isolation will begin to threaten their hold on power, and it is when that point is reached that we will likely have our best chance of peacefully disarming these rogue states. That is why I still believe that diplomacy, backed by enforceable sanctions, can ultimately achieve the goal we all share, and why I will support these bills.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I thank the gentleman from New York, Representative Rangel, for offering it. Every year for decades, the Congress has appropriated millions of dollars for the Pentagon to go around the world and recover the remains of our fallen. Those involved in the effort know that theirs is a solemn and vital mission, one that everyone who serves in this House strongly supports. It makes one proud to be an American knowing that we will go to great lengths to leave no soldier behind. Unfortunately, this laudable effort to recover the remains of those long deceased has not been matched by the same level of care and concern at the Dover Port Mortuary in recent years. I know the truth of this through a courageous constituent of mine, Lynn Smith of Frenchtown, New Jersey. Lynn's late husband, Sergeant First Class Scott Smith, was killed by an improvised explosive device in Iraq in 2006. More than a year after Scott's body was returned home to her and his parents, Lynn discovered that additional remains were subsequently recovered--then incinerated, mixed with medical waste, and dumped in a landfill in King George County, Virginia. As Lynn suspected, and as we now know, that practice was performed on the unclaimed additional remains of at least 273 other servicemembers. There were a number of other incidents of desecration or mishandling of remains that took place at Dover that were subsequently exposed by three Dover employees, who took the dangerous step of becoming whistleblowers and reporting their allegations to the Office of Special Counsel. Make no mistake-- those whistleblowers are true public servants, and I thank them. I have made it clear to Air Force officials that they must never allow this kind of outrage to happen again, and that those who retaliated against the whistleblowers should be dismissed from government service. If we can get our MIA recovery and identification process right, the same high standards must apply at Dover. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for offering this bill and I urge its swift passage.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011. While I support sensible restrictions on dangerous substances, I am concerned about the unintended consequences this bill could have on medical research. This bill has the potential to make these kinds of substances extremely difficult for researchers to obtain. In fact, many researchers have expressed concern that the list in this bill is too broad and would restrict their ability to conduct important experiments. Additionally, this legislation would bypass the scientific and medical review process that is in place for adding substances to Schedule I. Making decisions without scientific review is problematic. It is important to note that states are free to make decisions regarding these kinds of substances. I supported the reasonable step New Jersey took when it banned the synthetic drugs known as ``bath salts'' this summer. Since this bill would bypass scientific review and could hinder much- needed research, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so called Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Just as the authors went through contortions to generate names with a cute acronym, so this bill is very . . . This misguided legislation would undermine the ability of federal agencies to promulgate and enforce safeguards that protect public health and our environment. Today again the Majority is showing the American public that they don't think we have a jobs crisis in America, and that getting Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the American economy back on track and helping to create jobs is my first, second and third priority. Unlike the Majority, I remain committed to creating jobs immediately and expanding educational opportunity for all Americans. The so called REINS Act is legislation in search of a problem. Federal agencies cannot create rules and regulations without statutory authority that is granted by Congress, and Congress already has the ability to overturn agency rules. The REINS Act would require Congress to vote within seventy days on all major rules, creating an unprecedented level of uncertainty for the vast number of businesses, organizations, and other entities that already comply with government protections affecting food and drug safety and air and water pollution. The REINS Act puts politics above the safety and health of the American people. We should let the scientists and experts in the agencies develop and enforce rules like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that protect all Americans from toxic air pollution and water- borne illness. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the national move to interfere with the voting rights of eligible citizens is deliberate. In 2011 the number of States requiring strict forms of government-issued IDs has nearly quadrupled. Why the sudden increase? Proponents claim that voter fraud is the driving force; yet there is no evidence of this kind of deception. What do they think? That there are droves of people sneaking across the southern border so they can vote or that there are 15-year-olds trying to sneak into voting booths, and so we've got to card them? This is simply discrimination masquerading as orderly government. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that one in 10 eligible registered voters does not have the forms of ID that are acceptable under these expanding State laws. We can't stand by and let big money and special interests manipulate the results of elections by enacting 21st-century poll taxes. Poll taxes were thrown out decades ago as discrimination and contrary to processes.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Election Prevention Act, H.R. 3094. As a member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, I voted against this fundamentally flawed bill when we considered it and I will oppose it again today. The majority deceptively named this bill the Workplace Democracy and Fairness Act, which should tell us all that this bill has nothing to do with workplace democracy or fairness. If they wanted to deal with those issues they would bring to the floor the Employee Free Choice Act, which I have long been a cosponsor of. Today again the Majority is showing the American public that the Majority don't think we have a jobs crisis in America, and that getting Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the American economy back on track and helping to create jobs is my first, second and third priority. Unlike the Majority, I remain committed to creating jobs immediately and expanding educational opportunity for all Americans. Unfortunately, my amendment to help keep almost 400,000 teachers in the classroom was rejected on procedural grounds. Rather than bringing to the floor legislation to help create jobs, we are wasting the time of this House attempting to undermine workers rights. The Election Prevention Act continues an assault on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the work it does to uphold the rights of workers across our county. This bill will NOT help create a single job. Rather, the bill would allow employers to delay union organizing elections in the hopes of discouraging workers from organizing, encourage frivolous litigation and manipulate the procedures of union elections. The NLRB has proposed real changes to restore fairness to the union election process and reduce unnecessary delays. For example the proposed rules would allow the electronic filing of petitions, ensure that all parties receive timely information about pending matters, and allow for the consolidation of all appeals into a single post-election appeals process. These are sensible changes. Yet, the Election Prevention Act would override these proposed rules, and make arbitrary delays commonplace. This bill is one more solution in search of a problem. The problem is jobs; the solution is Congress taking bold steps to get Americans back to work. At a town hall I recently held, no one asked me about the NLRB, they asked me about jobs and economic growth. We should be mindful of why Congress approved the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and established the NLRB in 1935. Senator Robert Wagner who wrote the NLRA reminded his colleagues that in 1935 ``in the highest income bracket, one-tenth of 1 percent of the families in the United States were earning as much as the 42 percent at the bottom.'' Today's economic conditions are remarkably similar. Yet, instead of helping workers organize and bargain collectively to help raise wages, improve workplace safety and ensure a comfortable retirement, the Election Prevention Act ignores the economic crisis facing American workers and makes the American Dream even harder to achieve.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we already know that in 38 States there is introduced legislation that would suppress the participation and the votes of young, minority, and elderly voters. Now we see their allies here in Congress who are trying to eliminate the only Federal agency charged with improving the conduct of elections and making sure that every vote counts. If you like the direction of the State legislatures, you're going to be thrilled by the legislation before us today to close the Election Assistance Commission. The voter's vote should be behind a curtain of secrecy, but the process by which registration and elections are conducted should be transparent. If not, voters will cease to believe that the process is fair and that their vote counts. Let me remind my colleagues there is nothing more crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, the fairness, the accountability, the accuracy of elections. Democracy works only if the citizens believe it does. The system must work, and the people must believe in it; but voting shouldn't be an act of blind faith. It should be an act of record. The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral process. Too many people across the country have lost confidence in the legitimacy of the election results. Dismantling the EAC would further erode that necessary faith in the process. We've discussed several times--and others have talked about it--if manipulating the outcome of elections occurs, how much easier will it be once the EAC is eliminated. Millions of Americans are casting their votes now on unauditable voting machines and the results of most elections are not audited. Eliminating the EAC would increase the risks that our electoral process would be compromised by vote manipulation, by targeted voter ID laws, by voter system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk? Certainly not. Do we want problems to go undetected? I would hope not. Less oversight, lesser standards, less transparency in reporting, less testing, fewer audience weakens our democracy. Abolishing the EAC is the wrong way to go.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, two of the bills before us this week are just two more bills that will not create jobs, endanger the public health, and waste the time and money of the American people. These bills are trying to block new regulations under the misguided notion that all regulations are bad and prevent economic growth. This misguided approach deliberately ignores that regulations have improved the safety of our children's toys, made our air and water cleaner, and even saved the lives and limbs of our nation's workers. As the AFL-CIO has H.R. 527, the so-called ``Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act'' would expand the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act by covering regulations that may have an indirect effect on small businesses and adding a host of new analytical requirements that will make it even more difficult for agencies to take action to protect workers and the public. Almost any action an agency proposes--including something as simple as a guidance document designed to help a business comply with a rule--could be subject to a lengthy regulatory process. While the bill purports to be focused on small business, it would cover more than 99 percent of all employers, including firms in some industries with up to 1,500 workers or $35.5 million in annual revenues. It is a special interest bailout for business. H.R. 3010, the so-called ``Regulatory Accountability Act'', is equally odious. This bill would effectively eviscerate the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and Health Act. As critics have noted, the bill would require agencies to adopt the least costly rule, instead of the most protective rule as is now required by the OSH Act and MSH Act. It would make protecting workers and the public secondary to limiting costs and impacts on businesses and corporations. If enacted, this legislation would be a license for businesses to cut corners and endanger workers and the public in the pursuit of ever greater profits--all at the expense of the public good. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting both of these atrocious bills so we can get on with the business of creating real jobs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as the President has designated this month as National Family Caregivers Month, I rise to give honor and to recognize the tens of millions of Americans and the million New Jerseyans who provide loving care for family members and friends living with disabilities and illnesses. Caregiving is not easy. The caregivers themselves face physical and mental health complications. Some are working with almost unbelievable endurance. Some of these caregivers are part of the ``sandwich'' generation, providing care for their children as well as their parents. There are economic costs as well. U.S. employers estimate the cost to be about $34 billion a year in lost productivity. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress to provide caregivers with the help they need--respite care, a reauthorized Older Americans Act, tax credits. Just because the CLASS Act will not be implemented does not mean the need to provide care will go away. We have work to do.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, today the majority is showing the American public again that the majority doesn't think we have a jobs crisis in America. Getting Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the American economy back on track and creating jobs is my first, second, and third priority. Until the majority gets to work, we're not going to move this country forward. Democrats remain committed to creating jobs immediately and to expanding educational opportunity for all Americans. Rather than bringing to the floor legislation to help create jobs, we're wasting time with this attempt to undermine workers' rights--the right to organize, to have safe working conditions, fair wages. On Monday night, I had a town hall. Not one person--not one--wanted to talk with me about the NLRB or its rulemaking; but many wanted to talk about job creation and wanted to make sure we were investing in our children's education. I offered an amendment to this bill to help keep teachers in the children's classrooms. I offered a real solution to a real problem, not a special interest giveaway to big business. Unfortunately, the majority blocked my amendment on procedural grounds. Now, across the country, budget cuts and teacher layoffs have forced schools to reduce the days of the school year, to cut classes in literacy or arts or music or physical education, to increase class sizes, or to reduce library hours. My amendment would have invested in our workforce and our educational system. My amendment would have supported nearly 400,000 education jobs, enough for States to avoid the harmful layoffs and to rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs over recent years. Tom, a student from East Brunswick, wrote me recently. ``Teacher layoffs in the eyes of this student is a bad thing,'' he said. ``This past year, I had many oversized classes.'' Our children don't get a second chance to succeed in school. Our future economic growth depends on a well-educated and innovative workforce. That's what we should be dealing with today. My amendment would have supported our children. This flawed bill ignores those pleas for help.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 Conference report for the Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, and Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. However, I regret the process that brought this bill to the floor. A full one third of this bill, the Transportation-HUD appropriations, has never been considered by the House before. This bill was not written in an open process and members were not allowed to offer amendments to improve the bill. I am pleased that this bill included the funding I fought for to help our local residents recover and rebuild from the flooding which caused so much destruction in New Jersey. This bill provides $2.3 billion in needed disaster assistance to ensure Central New Jersey's businesses and home owners have the resources they need to mitigate the damage and put in place preventive measures in advance of future disasters. Further, this bill rejects the dangerous attempt by House Republicans to end the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and provides the program with almost $200 million to help local police departments keep our communities safe despite the local budget constraints. While this represents a steep cut in funding from last year, these funds will help some local departments who are having to make tough decisions about firing police officers for a lack of resources. Going forward, we must do far more to get more cops back on the beat. In these difficult times, this bill also denies an attempt to reduce funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC). SNAP and WIC help our fellow Americans during their most difficult times with some food assistance to help make ends meet. As millions of our fellow Americans are struggling in this difficult economy, this bill provides $105 billion for domestic food assistance programs, an 18 percent increase from last year, to make sure they are at least able to keep some food on the table. As a research scientist, I have long supported the important role of federal investment in basic research. I am glad this bill increases funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to $7 billion, an increase of $173 million. It also provides the necessary funding to continue the development of the James Webb Space Telescope that will allow researchers to find the first galaxies and help create jobs now. Further, this bill provides the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office a 29 percent increase in funding to ensure that our Nation's inventors are able to get their ideas to market and help grow our economy. I am also pleased that this bill makes needed changes to ensure that the maximum loan limits for the Federal Housing Administration are maintained at a level necessary for areas with high cost housing like we have in New Jersey. With the housing market still weak, this will help provide some necessary stability and support for prospective home owners. It is unfortunate that this bill freezes funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which is tasked with implementing many of the commonsense Wall Street reforms we approved last year. Without additional funding the CFTC will struggle to prevent future financial crises, and not have the resources needed to fight oil speculation which is increasing the cost of gas at the pump. Finally, I regret that this bill contains a number of funding restrictions that will limit our Nation's law enforcement officers from combating gun trafficking and prevent sensible regulations from being established to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Yet again the NRA has been given an early Christmas present with the inclusion of these special giveaways tucked into this bill without a vote or any debate on them. This is not a perfect bill but it prevents a looming government shutdown. Further, it provides funding increases for a number of critical programs and rejects many of the dangerous cuts contained in the funding bills that the House previously approved. I support passage of this bill despite its pessimistic view of what America can achieve through ambitious funding of the programs covered under the bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the right question to ask is not, ``How can Congress create the political will necessary to balance our budget?'' The right questions to ask are, ``What is the right budget to enable a vigorous economy?'' And that is not necessarily a budget in exact numerical equality between income and outgo. And, second, ``How has America balanced its budget in the past?'' Madam Speaker, I took great personal satisfaction during my first term as a member of this body in voting for and helping to achieve America's first balanced budget in a generation. It was not easy to attain. Those members of Congress, myself included, who believe in fiscal responsibility and budgetary discipline, had to make tough choices and cast difficult votes in order to put the federal government's fiscal house in order. The White House and Congress can balance the federal budget without a constitutional amendment. We needed two things: sufficient income and no unnecessary spending. A revenue base made balancing the budget possible. We also had a recognition that a vibrant economy produces more revenue than an economy in a recession. That, Madam Speaker, is what is lacking today--not the political will, but the economic fundamentals. America's revenue base was decimated by the Bush tax cuts, which gave away hundreds of billions of dollars to the most fortunate Americans while doing little to help middle-class families. And America's economy has been devastated by the financial crisis, which has diminished the federal government's revenue base and required us to spend money to sustain the social safety net and to create jobs. Madam Speaker, if America truly wants to return to the era of balanced budgets, we don't need a misguided and destructive constitutional amendment. What America needs is to invest in those things that allow and help our people to be productive--education, research, health care, and things that help the wheels of commerce turn, like banking and trading regulations, environmental protection, and freer migration of talented people. We need the wealthiest Americans and our wealthiest corporations to pay their fair share of the cost of running this nation. And we need to act with urgency and compassion to put to work the 25 million Americans who are out of work or underemployed. We need to create jobs in the short-term to stop the damage to our long-term economy. Madam Speaker, our history of amending the Constitution has been about the enhancement of individual rights or the correction of fundamental structural flaws in the federal government. Politics--not a structural flaw--created our current deficit problem, and political compromise can fix it. We must be committed to reaching the political compromises that are necessary in order to exercise fiscal responsibility and balance budgets consistently. Madam Speaker, a balanced budget amendment is nothing more than a fine example of political theater. We will debate this amendment for hours, but without any chance to amend it or consider any alternatives. The majority is putting the bill on the floor under a procedure normally reserved for non-controversial measures, despite the very controversial nature of this flawed constitutional amendment. It is bad policy that will not bring us any closer to solving our budget problems, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it here today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 674. The provisions contained in this amended legislation are a long time coming and I am pleased to see this body finally consider a measure that will have a tangible effect for Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. More importantly, these measures will help a particular group of Americans who I think we all agree deserve our full support: our Nation's veterans. Right now, men and women returning stateside from Iraq and Afghanistan face an unemployment rate of over 12 percent. Nearly a quarter of a million of recently returned veterans are jobless. This is unconscionable. If we can give our men and women the tools they need to succeed in combat, then certainly we must help them succeed when they return home. Moreover, veterans make excellent employees--I know because I have two working for me. Helping our veterans find jobs will put some of the finest men and women in the country into the American workforce. It's a win-win situation. This measure provides tax credits for businesses who hire veterans-- up to $5,600 if the veteran has been out of a job for more than six months. It also provides a $9,600 tax credit if the veteran has a service-connected disability. It expands Montgomery G.I. benefits for education and training opportunities for older veterans. And it includes provisions to encourage separating service members to seek employment in civilian federal service. Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that many of these are measures that President Obama proposed in the American Jobs Act. I am pleased that we are considering these specific provisions today, but dozens of other provisions in the Jobs Act would help put an even greater number of veterans back to work: small business tax cuts, supporting teachers and first responders, rebuilding and expanding our infrastructure. We must do more, and by advancing the proposals currently idling in this body, we can do more. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure to help put our Nation's veterans back to work.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this is another great example of legislation in search of a problem. Driven by ideological fervor of its sponsors rather than by any practical approach to safety, H.R. 822 would amend existing Federal law to establish a national standard for carrying concealed firearms. As the sponsors well know, these matters have long been the province of the States. It's fascinating how quickly the majority ignores the 10th Amendment when the gun lobby comes calling. Why needlessly create a conflict, or should I say a shootout, between the Second and the 10th Amendments? Passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which I voted for, and which permits qualified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across States, makes this essentially redundant and unnecessary. The bill before us would have the effect of overriding New Jersey's own laws in this area, which police officers and hunters and other citizens tell me work well and keep our citizens safe. Ask our law enforcement officers. They'll tell you New Jerseyans live well within our gun safety laws. We don't need more lax laws. Now, others have said today--but maybe it's worth repeating--that this body should be focusing on creating jobs, not passing ideologically driven, special interest legislation that would endanger public safety, subvert the constitutional order, and go against the interests and the declared recommendations of law enforcement officers all across the U.S.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Texas, and I thank him very much for setting aside some time for this important issue. You know, more than a century ago, the Supreme Court described the right to vote as the most fundamental right in our government because it is the preservative of all other rights. Indeed, that's true. And many years later, half a century ago, President Lyndon Johnson said that ``the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice.'' The vote is the lifeblood of self-government, and it's one of the most powerful ways that citizens can affect change. The integrity of the electoral process is fundamental to ensuring that the voice of the people is heard. I often say that a self-governing country such as ours works only if you believe it does. And we must make sure that every American knows that every vote counts, that every vote will be counted and that, you know, recognizing how complicated--it's not as simple as we would all like to believe--how complicated it is, that we, at the Federal level and at the State level, are doing everything we can to protect the franchise, to protect the franchise of each citizen to cast his vote. And it's not just that we want to protect this as a right; it's something we should desire for the sake of our country, that we get the diversity of opinion. Well, what's happening right now is in State after State there's legislation that's intended to exclude some opinions, exclude some individuals, exclude some groups. Of course, this is something this country has seen in the past and worked diligently--yes, through Federal law--to correct. It was known as a poll tax. There were also literacy tests, quite clearly intended to exclude African Americans from not just their right to vote, but from their obligation and their privilege of voting. What happens if laws are enacted to diminish the integrity and the accessibility of the ballot box for particular sectors of society? What happens if those disenfranchised voters typically vote for candidates representing one party? Well, I came of age in the throes of the civil rights movement, when our colleague Representative John Lewis, then a young man who had been tapped by Martin Luther King, Jr. to become a leader in the movement, was beaten. I often say he's the only Member of this Chamber who had his skull cracked, literally, to try to earn the right for everyone, every citizen to vote. In the aftermath of those bloody confrontations, Congress said there is a role for the Federal Government. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, and it's made an enormous difference. But we can't sit back. We can't rest because right now, in State after State, there is effort to exclude some people. If you require people to jump through a lot of hoops, maybe not a lot of money, but spend some money, to me, that's a poll tax. That is illegal, unconstitutional. We thought we had gotten away from it. We thought we had gotten away from so-called literacy tests where people had to jump through some truly unreasonable hurdles in order to vote, where prospective voters were quizzed to ask how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap. Hurdles that could not be crossed. Well, you know, it sounds reasonable when you say you don't want anyone who's not eligible to be showing up to vote. But where are those people? In State after State, these ID requirements are put in place to deal with a problem that doesn't exist, and millions of Americans are being excluded from voting in order to deal ostensibly with this problem of fraud at the polling place. Now, I don't doubt that in some ways, subtle or otherwise, there is some fraud. But I have not heard of a single immigrant coming across the border, walking through the desert of our southern States so that they could sneak in and cast a ballot some place. There are tough laws and severe penalties for people who vote fraudulently in the name or address that is intended to deceive. But very few people have been caught doing that. There are very few examples of prosecutions or apprehensions or, for that matter, even suspicions of this happening. And yet all of these laws that are being passed are ostensibly to deal with that problem. It's a problem that doesn't exist in nearly 5 million Americans by estimates from such people as the Brennan Center of the law school at NYU. Five million people might be excluded from this. So I thank my friend from Texas for engaging in this discussion tonight. Indeed, this is the right that preserves all other rights. What could be more important? It is cynical, it is disingenuous, it is un-American what people are doing in a very systematic way to exclude large groups of people from voting to solve a problem, an imaginary problem that's been trumped up. I believe it's been trumped up just so that they could exclude large numbers of people from voting. I thank my friend for raising this critically important question.

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Texas. The history of America has been a history of expanding the franchise, the opportunity, the right to vote. And it's based on this principle that we often talk about in this Chamber but maybe don't pay enough attention to, which is the principle of equality under the law. We're not just saying that, Yes, everybody can vote--well, unless you are disabled, and you can't get into the polling place. Or everybody can vote except, well, if you're 75 years old, 85 years old, you are no longer driving, and you have let your driver's license expire, and, no, you haven't gotten down to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get another one. Or we'll let everybody vote--well, as long as you pay a tax or if your grandfather voted or if you can cross these hurdles. Our history has been a history of saying everybody is equal under the law. And we don't put artificial hurdles in place. The 15th Amendment said you can't deny African Americans the right to vote. In 1915, the Supreme Court said, The grandfather clauses are unconstitutional, which would outlaw exemptions from literacy requirements for voters whose grandfathers had been eligible to vote at the time of the Civil War. The 19th Amendment said women can vote. The 23rd Amendment said citizens of the District of Columbia could vote in Presidential elections. The 24th Amendment outlawed poll taxes. And in 1965, as I referred to earlier, in the aftermath of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or language-minority status. It prohibits the use of suppressive tactics in various poll tests. I could go on. The 18-year-old vote, the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires equal access to voting places, the National Voter Registration Act, the ``Motor Voter Act,'' these are all based on the principle of equality under the law.

Mr. HOLT. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HOLT. And continuing to answer the gentleman's question: Who cares? Why does it matter? My friend from Florida has talked about how millions can be disenfranchised, excluded by the photo ID laws. Additionally, State after State has made it more difficult to conduct voter registration drives. So people who are eligible, who should be voting, are prevented from or hindered in their registration. And hundreds of thousands, we expect, would be excluded because of registration drives. And there are other restrictions, too, that I will talk about in a moment.

Mr. HOLT. So I ask the gentlelady, how many other patriotic Americans are going to be deterred from asking their friends, their neighbors--in this case, maybe students--from registering for fear that they'll be prosecuted if they don't dot the I's just right?