Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today the House has a chance to make a judgment about the wisdom of continuing our combat role in Afghanistan. In 2009, I came to the floor of the House and declared that I would give the President at least a year to show that his approach could work. For those who choose to actually look at the facts and the results to date, the conclusion is clear: it is time--past time--for us to leave Afghanistan. Time and again, our military forces would take out one of their field commanders, and every time several more rise to take their place. This is the nature of insurgency, it is the nature of the problem that confronts us, and it is not a problem that will be resolved by the continuous, endless use of military force. The number of insurgent attacks is at an all-time high. The corruption and dysfunctionality of the Afghan government has become legendary. And the cost of this conflict--both in killed and wounded, including the long-term care costs for the hundreds of thousands of veterans of this war--continue to rise. I voted for this resolution today in order to show that I am no longer willing to allow our military and our nation to bear the endless, deadly burden of a war without end that is moving neither our country nor theirs closer to safety and security. I hope the President takes note and works with us to bring our troops home.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, NPR provides news and cultural enrichment--yes, enrichment--that adds value to the lives of millions of Americans. It reaches into all parts of our country, even into that fact-free universe where the other side seems to be living, saying that factual information is somehow a liberal bias. We talk about the need for a well-informed public. Just this morning, we had a reminder of the benefits that NPR brings to America. Today, there was a news report on the slow progress the U.S. Army is making towards seeing that wounded soldiers get the Purple Hearts they deserve. General Chiarelli, the Army's second in command, remarked in this story that it was previous reporting by NPR that was removing the confusion and the misunderstanding that had prevented the serving soldiers from getting the Purple Heart recognition. This is good reporting. The other side seems to think that this is, that this is, this is--wait, wait, don't tell me--biased reporting. We need NPR.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I recognize that under the structure of this bill this amendment is not in order. I only say it should be.

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

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, instead of focusing on job creation, innovation, retirement security or fair taxes, today we're considering legislation that would terminate a program that has the potential to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes. We are not here to debate fixing the program or to consider replacing it with a more effective alternative; but, rather, we're here to end the program that is only a few months old, to declare it a failure and go home. This is not good government. It will not help the middle class. This is not what my constituents sent me to Washington to do. New Jerseyans, as so many around the country, are burdened by high property taxes. While we allow individuals who itemize their Federal taxes to deduct State and local taxes, many non-itemizers--particularly retirees on fixed incomes--feel the impact of high rates. The amendment before us that I present would provide real help to millions of homeowners, especially senior citizens, across the country and, yes, in central New Jersey, my district. Specifically, my amendment would renew for 5 years the property tax deduction for American homeowners who don't itemize on their Federal taxes. It would allow single filers to deduct $500 and joint filers to deduct $1,000 on top of the standard deduction and index these additional deductions for inflation. This property tax provision--based on legislation that I wrote and was signed into law by former President Bush in 2008 and was extended through the 2009 tax year--would continue that. Unfortunately, although the extension of this tax credit for 2010 was passed by this House, it failed to become law. So that is why on the first day of this Congress I introduced the Universal Homeowners Tax Relief Act. And with this amendment, we have the opportunity to pass my legislation to provide an estimated 30 million people nationwide, and 600,000 in New Jersey, with a few extra hundred dollars that I'm sure they could use. In these uncertain economic times, it is no small matter. And unlike the bill before us today, my amendment would provide real help for American homeowners. I urge passage of the amendment. Point of Order

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. I regret that the authors of this legislation have taken such a thoughtless approach. We could have had before us today a bill that would repeal any unnecessary and burdensome paperwork that is at issue here and we could have done it without putting burden on ordinary families. This bill would repeal a reporting requirement that would require business owners to provide an IRS form 1099 to all vendors with whom they pay $600 or more annually for their services. I agree that this reporting requirement should be repealed. In fact, I voted to repeal this requirement last year. Unfortunately, the bill attracted only two Republican votes and failed to pass the House on July 30, 2010. This Congress, I am a cosponsor of the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2011, which would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement. H.R. 4 would change the subsidies and repayment obligations of the tax credits available for people with incomes below 400 percent of poverty to assist with the cost of obtaining affordable health insurance. This would be a massive tax increase on the middle class. These tax credits will help low and middle income individuals and families pay insurance premiums. The credits are available for those individuals and families--up to 400 percent of the poverty line and cap the family's share of health insurance premiums at 9.5 percent of adjusted gross income. This bill would force people to pay back billions of dollars in tax credits they received to obtain affordable health insurance. Since the tax credits go directly to the health insurance company, individuals and families who had small fluctuations in their income would have to pay back money that they never received. For example, under this legislation a family of four earning $88,000 a year would have to pay $4,640 that they never received if the family got an unexpected $250 year-end bonus. In a time where we want to create jobs, this bill would penalize individuals who found a new job or got promoted. This bill harms average working Americans who cannot obtain insurance through their employers--the exact people we should be helping. I agree that this reporting requirement should be repealed. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2011. That bill would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, but does not increase taxes on the middle class. Today, we have a chance to vote against increasing taxes for hard working Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this piece of legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Pence to H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act. Mr. Pence's amendment would deny any federal funding to Planned Parenthood health facilities throughout the country. As a supporter of Planned Parenthood and the services that it offers to my constituents in my central New Jersey district, I firmly oppose this purely political amendment. This should not be a pro-life or pro-choice debate about one of the many services that Planned Parenthood provides. In fact, under current law no federal funds can be used for abortion services. Less than three percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortion related. The Pence amendment is in fact a fundamental attack on our nation's oldest and most respected reproductive healthcare provider, the over 5 million men and women that visit Planned Parenthood annually, and the one in five American women who will visit a Planned Parenthood center in their lifetime. Disqualifying Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds would disproportionately affect health-care services that prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood's medical services are related to contraception, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections; cancer screening, and other services like pregnancy tests and infertility treatment. Despite any claims to the contrary, the Pence amendment is clearly a direct attack on prevention services, and would increase the number of unwanted pregnancies. More than 90 percent of the care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide every day is primary and preventive, including wellness exams, cancer screenings, immunizations, contraception and STD testing and treatment. For many women, the only doctor or nurse they see is one they visit at a women's health center. In fact, more than 6 in 10 patients who receive care at a women's health center like Planned Parenthood consider it their primary source of health care. The 28 Planned Parenthood health centers in New Jersey serve over 90,000 patients per year for a wide range of primary and reproductive health services. In 2009 alone, these centers performed almost 45 thousand cervical screening tests that detected over 2 thousand abnormal results and 27 thousand breast exams that detected over 800 abnormal results. Taking away funds from Planned Parenthood would deny women life saving medical testing, increase unwanted pregnancies, and deny primary care services to millions of women throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pence amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Record show that I mistakenly voted in favor of amendment number 192 to H.R. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. I am a strong supporter of the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, and I oppose efforts to defund the program.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendments offered by Representative Garrett to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as the amendments by Representatives Walberg and Canseco to decrease such funding. As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I believe that the arts play a crucial role in our society, enhancing our creativity, promoting critical aspects of education, and providing Americans with the opportunity to view works of beauty and personal expression. Furthermore, the arts inspire our children to explore their own creativity and encourage positive development in the course of their educational careers. The arts are a fundamental component of our society and warrant federal funding. As noted by Americans for the Arts in its report Arts and Economic Prosperity III, across the county ``nonprofit arts and culture industry generates $166.2 billion in economic activity every year.'' The report also details that the arts support 5.7 million jobs and generate $29.6 billion in government revenue. In my district in New Jersey alone, as of January 2010, there were 1,841 arts-related businesses employing almost 10,000 people. So not only are the arts good for our cultural development as a society, they are good for our economic development as well. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents on this matter, and nearly every one has pleaded with me to preserve as much funding as possible for the arts. As one of them said, poignantly, ``a nation without culture is a nation without a soul.'' I strongly oppose any cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments offered by Representatives Garrett, Walberg and Canseco on this subject.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. This is really important. The country needs this money. The country owns this land. The country deserves these royalties. And whether we have not collected these royalties because of a mistake or because of a cozy relationship with the oil companies and the other party, for whatever reason these weren't collected, they should be collected. Royalty relief? No, it's not relief. This is what is supposed to be paid. And I think about all of the things that it should be going for. Portions of the royalties are owed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is what we spoke about yesterday, our Nation's most successful open space preservation program that is supposed to take money from the depletion of resources--these oil resources--and apply it to preservation of parks, recreation, and open space. That's just one of the things that should be done with this money that is owed to the American taxpayers.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, the continuing resolution bill before us handcuffs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by setting a maximum level that the Federal Reserve can fund the CFPB for the fiscal year that we are in. This amendment would allow the CFPB to function as intended. As a result of an open process last year that included a rare House-Senate conference, the House passed historic reforms to the Nation's financial system. It included such things as providing for disassembly of large, failing financial institutions so taxpayers wouldn't be saddled with the bailout. And it did a number of other things. But I would argue that probably the most important thing it did was to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Members of the House and the Senate, after much deliberation, concluded that in order for the CFPB to protect effectively American consumers, it must be independent. The Dodd-Frank legislation, which is the law of the land, is clear on this point. This new financial watchdog which would serve consumers in every kind of financial transaction where they had had no aid, no protection, no help before would be an independent organization, insulated from partisan fights on Capitol Hill, deriving its operating budget from the Federal Reserve. Section 1017 2(c) was very explicit on this. Some of the appropriators, being the appropriation animals that they are, may not like the fact that this is to be kept independent of appropriations, but it was to give this commission independence so that they could offer protection for the consumer. Now, I suppose we should applaud the ingenuity of the authors of this continuing resolution to get around the law of the land. Maybe we should applaud their sheer nerve in trying to de-fund this board. Less than 2 months into the 112th Congress, the majority, through this continuing resolution bill, is attempting to sneak through a provision in direct conflict with the spirit of the law, the intention of the law, and in direct contradiction to this intent to protect the consumer. It handcuffs the CFPB in order to preserve the status quo that benefits big banks at the expense of American consumers. If we've learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last several years, it should be this: by protecting consumers, we can protect the rest of the financial system. This amendment simply would correct section 1517 by inserting the appropriate amount of money that the CFPB estimates that it will need to get the work done for the sake of American consumers. This amendment would ensure that the recently created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when it assumes consumer protection authority this summer, will have the independence and will have the resources that it needs to begin its critical work of protecting consumers and, by extension, protecting the entire financial system of this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that Mrs. Lowey presented and in opposition to this continuing resolution, which would completely eliminate the national women's health and family planning programs known as title X. The resolution we are considering would cut care to Americans who need it most. Title X funds ensure that millions of low-income and uninsured individuals have access to primary health care. For most of these individuals, this is the only medical care they receive. Without access to this health care, they are at risk of developing serious medical conditions. If title X funding is eliminated, it would remove the only access point to primary health care for millions of women and would increase the health care costs for all Americans. Now, some of my colleagues would argue that title X is all about abortion. That statement is simply not true. These programs fund prevention, provide lifesaving care to millions of women each year, cancer detection, care provided, women and families treated with the dignity they deserve, and it is family planning. I know these claims, and I know the work of these clinics and their importance to our society. Maybe the men who put together this continuing resolution don't know what these programs do. I assure you, I do. Cutting funding to these programs would be devastating for women's health, and I strongly oppose efforts to do so. These programs prevent an estimated 1 million unintended pregnancies each year. For every dollar spent on family planning, several dollars are saved, saved, in Medicaid costs. These clinics provide lifesaving and preventive care to millions of women. In 2009 alone, providers performed millions of Pap tests, millions of breast exams, over 6 million tests for sexually transmitted infections and nearly 1 million HIV tests. In my home State of New Jersey, it is estimated that the elimination of these programs would cause as many as 40,000 patients to lose their access to women's health care. I estimate that without these funds, 14 Community Health Centers would close their doors. We need to take a careful look at whom we hurt by cutting these programs. In 2009, these funded health centers provided services to over 135,000 patients. Eliminating national family planning programs would result in millions of women across the country losing access to primary care and preventive health care. I can't emphasize that too strongly. Simply put, without these programs, more women will experience unintended pregnancies, face potentially life-threatening cancer, and other disease--diseases that could have been prevented. This is unacceptable. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT. In every State of the United States, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been one of the most successful programs for preserving open space and our environment for future generations. It is important to note, as the ranking member has said, that the LWCF is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by fees charged to the industry for the extraction of oil and gas from public lands. Congress created the LWCF 45 years ago on the principle that some funds garnered from extraction of resources should be devoted to the preservation of other resources, in fact protecting permanently important lands and waters and access to recreation for all Americans. The LWCF is the only environmental preservation program in the Federal Government that is fully offset, and under the LWCF, polluters, not taxpayers, pay to protect the environment. So cutting this program doesn't save taxpayer dollars. It robs taxpayers of the returns. And, actually, as in so many things in this continuing resolution, it does away with jobs. It's my belief that the LWCF should be fully funded at the authorized level of $900 million and the stateside program should receive at least $200 million to match State funds. This is what the President requested in his fiscal year 2012 budget--and I think that's a fair proposal. The draconian continuing resolution in front of us not only would zero out the stateside portion of the LWCF, it would cut the LWCF overall program to the lowest level in its history, ending much-needed balance between resource extraction and resource conservation. We should reject this amendment. The budget before us and this continuing resolution would really turn back the clock on efforts to preserve open spaces. The stateside portion of LWCF, which I helped revive in one of my first acts when I came to this Congress, through its matching grants has saved over 73,000 acres in my State of New Jersey; and in our 12th District, which I have the privilege to represent, we've received tens of millions of dollars in stateside LWCF funding. Every family that visits Veterans Park in Mercer County, the Sickles recreation area in the Borough of Shrewsbury, or the Colonial Lake playground in Lawrence Township, to name a few of the hundreds of LWCF projects, have benefited directly from this successful program. Preserving open space is more than an environmental issue. It really is a quality of life issue. It's not just about preserving beautiful vistas. It's about preserving nature's way of cleansing herself. It is about providing recreation and parks. It is particularly important for States east of the Mississippi, but it is no less important for all 50 States. Every State has positive stories to tell about LWCF. Voters consistently have supported funding open space preservation. Recent polling found that 86 percent of Americans are supportive of reinvesting funds from offshore drilling fees to land and water protection. President Johnson said, ``If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than with sorrow, we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looks when we get through with it.'' The Land and Water Conversation Fund is one of the few government programs that really benefits all Americans, does not use taxpayer dollars, and receives the overwhelming support of the Nation. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to eliminate the $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund. If we are going to be cutting Pell Grants and energy research and heating assistance for families here in the United States, we certainly should take a hard look at Pentagon spending as well. Would taxpayers want their dollars to go to pay for Iraqi police on the streets of Baghdad when we are cutting funding for police in Trenton, New Jersey, and other cities and towns across our Nation? I want my colleagues to understand what the authors of H.R. 1 are proposing here today. It is about choices. My colleagues, I am sure, could present a good justification for funding Iraq Security Forces. I certainly want to see the people of Iraq living in peace and freedom, free from harm, either domestic or foreign harm. However, the Government of Iraq has ample revenue from oil sales to pay for Iraq security. In contrast, our country faces not only a budget deficit, but critical unmet domestic needs, and this legislation before us today makes many, many unwise cuts. H.R. 1 calls for spending $1.5 billion in taxpayer money to pay for foreign police officers in Iraq while simultaneously cutting $300 million for the highly successful COPS program here at home. The COPS program is vital. Our local police departments count on it to help them hire additional officers to combat crime in our communities and to provide true community policing. The contrast couldn't be more stark and absurd; have American taxpayers foot the bill for police in Baghdad but not for police in America. H.R. 1 showcases the misguided priorities of the new majority. What are they thinking? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT. Our colleagues may recall that Mr. DeFazio and I and others offered essentially this amendment in fiscal year 2007 and it passed, demonstrating the strong bipartisan support in this House for an increase in funding in this program. The $5 million funding level, however, although it was preserved until now, has been completely eliminated by this continuing resolution. In other words, both sides of this aisle have felt that this is worthwhile spending. Despite the worst economic downturn we've experienced since the Depression, the market for organic consumer products grew more than 5 percent in the past year, well several times the growth of conventional food sales, and growth in organic nonfood items was even more pronounced, increasing more than 9 percent as compared to 1 percent in conventional nonfood items. Now, my friend who just spoke in opposition to the legislation, Mr. Kingston, said, well, it's a booming industry, why do we need to do this? Well, transition from nonorganic farming to organic farming is a big step, especially for a small farm, and although there are more than 13,000 certified organic producers in the United States, that's not enough. We still need to help farmers make the transition to organic farming, and this program does more than help them make transition. It helps build an understanding of best practice. The organic transition program is a highly competitive grants program. It's been extremely important to the organic farming community. It funds research to assist the farmers in overcoming the barriers to make the transition and, as I say, to understand organic farming. Through grants awarded under this program, for example, projects were funded at Ohio State to study the impact of organic animal production on water quality or grafting to improve organic vegetable production. The small farmers don't have the opportunity to do this research as they are facing the big step of whether to make the transition to organic farming. At the University of Minnesota, this competitive grants program facilitated organic poultry production and helped achieve soybean aphid suppression using a fall-seeded rye cover crop. In other words, the organic industry really benefits from this. We should be talking about job creation. The bill before us today, as it appears, will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs--cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will end hundreds of thousands of jobs. We should focus our resources on industries that are growing and providing jobs. This quite small restoration of funds, $5 million, would do a great deal for the quality of life of farmers but also for jobs in America. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore $5 million to the organic transitions program. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HOLT. Amendment No. 235.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider the amendment out of order.