Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems that needs to be addressed is something that has outraged the country, my constituents, Mr. Garrett's constituents, I'm sure many. It occurred when TARP funds were denied to a bank, awarded to another bank. The first bank then was overtaken by the second bank using, presumably, TARP funds. This was not something that taxpayers appreciated. In Mr. Frank's legislation before us today, there are some protections against that happening. I would like to see still further protections against that happening, and I believe the taxpayers would, and, in fact, I believe Mr. Garrett would because the gentleman has expressed concern about choosing winners and losers, using TARP funds where the Treasury will say, well, this institution is not worthy of TARP funds, that institution is worthy of TARP funds, and the one that gets the funds can take over the loser. That is what so many taxpayers have found outrageous. I think that's what Mr. Garrett has spoken against. The amendment that I am asking to have considered would simply allow that entity denied the TARP funds to appeal. It would provide some insurance, meager perhaps, against the kind of National City Bank occurrence from happening again. It would provide a certain measure of protection against a winner overtaking a loser only because of the decisions of the Treasury. It's a small protection but I think a valuable protection, and I wish that the gentleman, my colleague from New Jersey, were more amenable to it. I would be happy to yield any remaining seconds to the chairman of the committee if he has further comment.

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

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask, with disappointment at the gentleman's obstreperousness and intransigence, to withdraw amendment No. 4 because it is unnecessary. It's already included in the manager's amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. For nearly 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked at a Goodyear Tire facility in Alabama. After learning that she was the lowest paid supervisor--earning 20 percent less than the lowest paid, least experienced man in the same position at Goodyear--she sued the company for pay discrimination. On May 29, 2007, after a series of cases and appeals, the Supreme Court handed down a disturbing 5-4 ruling that fundamentally rewrote protections that American workers have enjoyed for more than 40 years when they were codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the flawed decision, when Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a discrimination case within the statutorily provided 180 days from the initial decision to pay her less than her male colleagues, she was barred from filing a complaint and no relief was available. Despite documenting the sex based evaluation system Goodyear managers used, Lilly Ledbetter was denied justice and the rights afforded to her under the Civil Rights Act. Justice Alito's opinion runs contrary to decades of civil rights law, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Act would restore the law as it was prior to the Court's ill considered decision. This bill would make it clear that when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act extend not only to these discriminatory pay decisions and practices but to every paycheck that results from those pay decisions and practices. As an original cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I urge my colleagues to support its passage, and I encourage the Senate to work quickly to send it to the President.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Equal pay for equal work must not be just a saying, it must be the law. Last year I had the honor of joining the Chair of our committee and others in unveiling the portrait of the former New Jersey Representative Mary Norton, who was Chair of the Labor Committee seven decades ago and a tireless advocate then for equal pay. Under her leadership, Congress passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that established the 40-hour work week, it outlawed child labor and established a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour. The criticisms we hear today were the same then. The Federal Government shouldn't be involved, the critics said. I think of Mary Norton today when I say that while we have made significant progress since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the fight for equality in the workplace is far from over. According to the Census Bureau, women still earn 78 percent of men. Mary Norton understood that the wage gap was not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. Nowadays, men understand that too. When women earn less for equal work, families are forced to make do with less. I urge my colleagues to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12 the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009. Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the wage gap in the United States between men and women has narrowed significantly, however, on average, women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When women earn less for equal work, families are forced to do more with less. Affording all of life's expenses is challenging enough--it shouldn't be made harder as a result of women being shortchanged on payday. Under current law, victims of gender-based wage discrimination recover less in damages than victims of discrimination based on their race or ethnicity. All forms of discrimination, whether they are based on gender, race, or ethnicity are equally repugnant, and the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the law views all forms of discrimination in the workplace on the same level. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act would protect employees who discuss salary information punished in the workplace. Often times, wage discrimination is difficult to determine because salary levels are confidential. This bill would prevent employers from retaliating against employees who discuss openly, the most common way pay discrimination is uncovered. Finally, this bill would hold employers accountable by mandating that employers demonstrate to the court that pay disparity between employees is not gender-based, is job-related and is consistent with the needs of the business. As the country faces a challenging economic forecast, Congress must look after the best interests of working families. The Paycheck Fairness Act will make a difference for working families across the country, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I am voting for H. Res. 34, which expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare and security of the State of Israel. The indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas are an unacceptable assault on Israel's citizens and her sovereignty. Like all nations in the world, Israel has the right and responsibility to respond in self-defense. The United States has a responsibility to stand with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, during this crisis. At the same time, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that the humanitarian needs in Gaza are being addressed promptly and responsibly. The present resolution, H. Res. 34, is not so clear on that. The United States should have done more to ensure that they were being met even before the recent fighting, just as the United States should have done more to stop the mortars and rockets fired from Gaza over recent years. I am troubled deeply by reports that the humanitarian situation, bad as it has been, continues to deteriorate. Israel must make every effort to protect the innocent and prevent the destruction of civilian communities. All parties must work as quickly as possible to enact a durable and sustainable cease-fire that will allow for a lasting improvement of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and for the long-term security of Israel. It is critical to recognize that even a durable and sustainable cease-fire is only a temporary solution to the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We should remember that extremism incubates in societies afflicted with poverty, hopelessness, and humiliation. We must work tirelessly to diminish the appeal and influence of terrorists by lifting up all of those trapped in these conditions. It is equally necessary that we continue to assist moderate Palestinians and strengthen governments that are committed to securing a lasting peace with the State of Israel. I continue to believe that the United States has a vital role to play in brokering an enduring peace agreement. My thoughts and prayers are with all the innocent civilians suffering in Israel and Gaza. For their sake, the United States must recommit itself to bringing Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. This includes the need to create a viable representative of the Palestinians that can negotiate in good faith. And it includes the need to get the Israelis to make the daily welfare of ordinary Palestinians one of the principal criteria for any negotiations. The future security of the Middle East depends on negotiating a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians that both guarantees Israel's security and establishes a Palestinian state.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R. 7321), emergency legislation to authorize and appropriate funding to temporarily stabilize the American automobile industry. The automobile industry provides one of the few manufacturing bases left in the United States, and approximately 3.3 million jobs in the Nation are either directly or indirectly dependent upon it. According to the Economic Policy Institute, New Jersey stands to lose 17,900 jobs if General Motors fails, and 65,000 jobs if the auto industry collapses--and an industry-wide collapse is the likely result if even one of the big-three auto makers fails. As we stand on the precipice, already facing an unemployment rate more than 6 percent, we cannot afford to stand by and watch as millions more in America join the ranks of the unemployed. It is well within the realm of possibility--some experts argue it is virtually a certainty--that allowing even one of our major auto makers to fail would send the country into a depression. The United States is facing a virtual ``perfect storm'' with respect to the many sectors of its economy that are simultaneously in distress. One of the most damaging outcomes of this economic crisis has been that credit markets are frozen. In fact, despite the infusion of billions in funding intended to stabilize the financial services markets under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, enacted in October, credit markets still have not improved as of the closing days of 2008. Instead, stable banks that have received those Capital Purchase Program, CPP, funds under the EESA have tended either to retain the funds to improve their own stability or use the funds to purchase other struggling financial services entities. Had Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, funds under the EESA been used for the purpose the Treasury Secretary originally demanded them for--to purchase troubled assets or implement other mechanisms through which those assets could be liquidated and thus free up the credit markets--perhaps things would be different. Under the EESA, the U.S. Comptroller General is required to report every 60 days on TARP implementation, and in its first report released last week, the GAO stated that ``Treasury has yet to address a number of critical issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP is achieving its intended goals.'' I am not convinced that the CPP is achieving its goals, or even that the CPP program will be more effective than using TARP funds or other creative mechanisms to liquidate TARP assets would have been. In addition, the Treasury Secretary and the Bush administration have refused to use even a tiny fraction--less than 5 percent--of the TARP funds to stabilize the auto industry until the CPP has the impact of freeing up credit markets, which could then meet the auto industry's need for financing. Therefore, our major auto makers have come to Washington to ask the taxpayers for a loan. Some commentators, and indeed some of my constituents, have argued that Congress should simply let the automakers go bankrupt. But the likelihood that that could deepen our current recession is too great, and the persons who would be punished by congressional inaction are not the ones who created the crisis, but rather the millions of people whose jobs depend on the auto industry. Therefore, we must support the auto industry. I am pleased to see that the measure before us will provide taxpayers with an equity stake in the underlying companies, prohibit the payment of dividends to shareholders during the life of the loans, and prohibit golden parachutes and payment of bonuses to the top 25 most highly paid employees at each company. In addition, it establishes both a ``Car Czar'' to hold the companies accountable for developing and implementing sustainable restructuring plans, and oversight authority by the Government Accountability Office and the Special Inspector General overseeing the TARP rescue funds. But my own personal request to the automakers is that they look deep inside and unearth the roots of the problems that--independently of both the current financial crisis and the legacy costs that they have faced that other manufacturers have not--have caused them to lag behind their competitors overseas. It is important for us all to remember that it was General Motors that established the Saturn Corporation more than two decades ago, with the goal of creating a manufacturing plant from scratch to build small cars of superior quality and value, combining what was then the most advanced technology with the newest and most efficient and environmentally responsible approaches to management. Indeed, within a decade, Saturn achieved those goals by producing a car that J.D. Power & Associates ranked behind only the Lexus and the Infiniti, luxury cars produced by Toyota and Nissan overseas, for customer satisfaction in 1992. And it was General Motors, again, that developed the EV1 electronic car more than one decade ago, in response to California's then-zero- emissions requirement. The EV1 was a sleek, fast, powerful vehicle than ran on an overnight charge in the garage, and it was the much-beloved means of transportation for numerous well-known Hollywood celebrities. And yet, within a decade, the EV1 had all but disappeared from the roads and most of them--as graphically depicted in the documentary ``Who Killed the Electric Car''--were actually destroyed. If we don't understand all of the reasons why the success of GM's Saturn venture waned, or why the GM EV1 was all but wiped from the earth, we will never relaunch a sustainable auto mobile industry in this country. But we are here today because the United States remains in the throws of a financial crisis, and it is incumbent upon the government to act. Although I regret that already-authorized TARP funds are not being used for this purpose, and that the plan before us will in part cannibalizing the very funds authorized to facilitate the efforts of the automakers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, I will stand firmly behind our auto industry under the conditions the leadership have negotiated, rather than let it fail and disappear. I look forward to working with the new administration to craft a more sustainable, fiscally responsible solution to this problem in the coming months.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. My constituents are angry and I am too that we let our economy get to this point. The speculation and greed of Wall Street in recent years-- coupled with years of failures, excesses, arrogance, and irresponsibility of the regulatory agents, Treasury and other Cabinet Departments, the White House and even some in Congress--has resulted in the meltdown of our Nation's financial and credit markets. Many have passionately called for rejection of this compromise bill sent to us by the Senate following the rejection of the House bill earlier this week. There is a temptation for me to vote ``no.'' We could teach a lesson to Wall Street highflyers. We could teach a lesson to Secretary Paulson, President Bush, and the regulatory agencies. We could teach a lesson to the mortgage companies who entice borrowers to get over their heads. We could teach the Senators a lesson not to attach extraneous things to a financial bill. We could let the credit markets freeze up. We could let small businesses fail to meet next week's payroll. We could let college students drop out because they can't pay tuition. We could leave farmers, homeowners, and factories out in the cold. Would that teach the right lesson to the right people? I don't think so. Market turmoil is affecting more than the 78,000 New Jerseyans who work on Wall Street and the 266,200 New Jerseyans who work in the financial services sector throughout the State. There are thousands of my constituents who are not traders or high powered executives but still work in impacted industries. If left unchecked the credit crisis will hurt all of New Jersey, painfully affecting New Jerseyans from factory to financial district from farm to pharma. Furthermore, millions of Americans who have retired or are nearing retirement have seen their value of their pensions shrink. If day-to-day credit tightens up, Americans will not be able to get loans for college, cars, or a new furnace for the corner store. We need to act to ensure that retirement funds and pension plans are not devastated by investments that have lost value in a jittery market. Indeed we must act--we must stand behind our institutions, restore confidence in our markets, and protect millions of Americans who would be affected by a continuing collapse. That said, this bill is only one way to do that, and not the best way. I have worked with my colleagues to improve this bill, and I believe these improvements are sufficient to make the bill worth approving. There is much that should have been done and must still be done fix the problems in federal financial oversight agencies. The Treasury Department should have exercised its authority to oversee the mortgage markets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, should have raised the insurance limit on deposits, which has not been raised for 28 years, and created a net worth certificate program similar to the one that helped shore up banks in the 1980s. The Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, should have prohibited short selling especially, naked short selling. It should have changed the mark-to- market rule that forces banks' assets to be valued not at their long term worth but at what they would be sold--if only they could be sold-- for on market today. Alan Greenspan, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, should have followed the instructions of Congress in 1994 to regulate the mortgage market. Greenspan failed to act to institute oversight for years and years and when succeeding Chairman Bernanke finally recognized the need to act it was years too late. Had the Treasury Department, FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and SEC acted we would not be in this mess today. The Democratic Congress has tried to set this right several times. However, we failed to convince the administration to do what was right. Recently I have joined my colleagues in introducing legislation requiring the Treasury Department, FDIC, and SEC to take these actions and it is my hope that they will use their existing authority to undertake these common sense measures. Indeed some of those recommendations are included in this final version of the bill that is before us today. After careful and thoughtful review, I support the bill before us today because this legislation will help to mitigate this financial crisis, restore confidence in our financial institutions, and bring much needed liquidity to our marketplace. This bill is not, as so many of my colleagues have said on the floor today, a bailout that will save the fat cats on Wall Street. Had we accepted Secretary Paulson's original proposal that is exactly what it would have been. If the President had his way, he would have ridden a wave of fear and railroaded Congress into passing Secretary Paulson's original 3-page proposal asking for $700 billion--with no oversight--to bail out the financial services agencies. I did not support the original plan. The bill before us is a significant improvement to the original Bush- Paulson plan. While I believe that every Member of this body has what they think are better ideas how to fix the problem, no one has 218 votes for his or her plan. This is the plan we have. Legislative compromise is rarely pretty to watch. This legislation includes protections to ensure that the taxpayers' money is not wasted. Only half of the authorized $700 billion would initially be available to the Treasury Department. A strict oversight board would be created to monitor how these funds are being used and the effect it has on the economy, and to advise the Secretary of the Treasury Department on how these funds are used. Congress and the President would have to approve the release of the next $350 billion if it is needed. This legislation would require the Treasury Department to implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage lenders to modify loans and mortgages to prevent foreclosures and keep people in their homes. The bill also helps save small businesses that need credit by allowing small community banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks. It will shore up banks by increasing FDIC insurance to $250,000 and prevent runs on banks. Finally, we can expect that taxpayers will recoup most of the money spent on this proposal through the equity they will hold in companies helped by this proposal. The total cost will be much, much less than $700 billion. This legislation also extends a needed tax relief which, unless extended, would expire at the end of the year. It will provide a one year patch that will prevent 88,000 New Jerseyans from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, this year. It will retain and create half a million jobs and strengthen our economy by extending the renewable energy tax credits. It will extend essential tax cuts for American families helping 4.5 million Americans afford college by extending the tuition deduction, and extending the child tax credit. It will extend for 1 year my initiative that allows a property tax deduction for taxpayers who do not itemize on their tax returns of $500 for single filers and $1,000 deduction for joint filers. The legislation helps American small businesses by extending the R&D tax credit and the new markets tax credit. It will also require mental health parity in employer-based insurance and end discrimination against patients seeking treatment for mental illness, an initiative that I have been working on since I was elected to Congress. These extraneous tax provisions should not have been added by the Senate. Nonetheless, most of the tax cuts in this bill have been passed by the House several times and are not ``pork.'' In fact they are the same tax benefits that are currently in effect and that this body has passed several times. I do not deny that there are provisions in this bill that do not belong. In fact, the provisions decreasing the excise tax on Puerto Rican rum as well as the decrease in the excise tax on wooden arrows are egregious. There should not be a tax deduction for movie and television producers. Nor should this legislation encourage the production of dirty fuels like coal to liquids and oil shale. I cannot justify these provisions, but I will not vote against teachers being able to get a tax deduction for buying supplies for their students, against the solar tax credit which has helped New Jersey become one of the nation's leaders in solar energy production, or against incentives for businesses and individuals to donate items to schools. We can expect that H.R. 1424 will help American families by loosening the credit market. However, if we do not address the origins of this problem we will be forced to come back again to address the symptoms. The root of this problem is that bad mortgages, when mixed with the good mortgages, have poisoned the financial papers. We need to help Americans saddled with these bad mortgages. It is estimated that a million currently solvent mortgages will turn toxic by next year and further destabilize our financial institutions. It is our responsibility to prevent this from happening. Doing so would benefit the homeowners, the neighborhoods, the towns, and the investors in the financial district. I suggest that we consider a model that has been proven to help the homeowner, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, HOLC. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation of the 1930's through the 1950's helped people with their mortgages. It was a Federal program that shored up a collapsing market and rescued a million homeowners. Incidentally, when it finally went out of business, it showed a net plus for the taxpayer. I will be introducing legislation which would create such a program. Indeed, that legislation should have been used instead of the Paulson-Bush approach. I believe that Congress should come back into session after the November elections to pass such a bill and to take up an economic stimulus package that will help those suffering on Main Street. It is deeply concerning to me and infuriating to our constituents that as we have focused on the crisis on Wall Street we have not paid comparable attention to American families that have been struggling for months. The unemployment rate has been steadily increasing, reaching 6.1 percent this month, the highest level since 1992. This year, 605,000 Americans have lost their jobs. Employed Americans are continuing to struggle with increasing energy and food costs and decreasing wages. Many are at risk of losing their pensions due to bad decisions made by Wall Street. We must deal with the bad mortgages. People want to punish those who behaved recklessly. There may be actual legal action. That may provide some satisfaction, but without today's bill it would not address the crisis of confidence, it would not help the people who are about to be hurt financially. We must deal with the long term problems: problems of bond traders wheeling and dealing in paper with no thought of the homes, factories and people behind these bonds; problems of some employers who show no allegiance to their workers; problems of families who in good times consume more than they save; problems of regulatory agencies that revel in the unrestrained trading. We should not wait for a new administration to help Americans who are suffering from this economic downturn and I urge my colleagues to reconvene Congress after the elections to address our Nation's pressing economic concerns.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. As we work to rescue our economy we must understand how we got to this point. The speculation and greed of Wall Street in recent years-- coupled with years of failures, excesses, arrogance and irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and some in Congress--has resulted in the meltdown of our Nation's financial markets. The subprime mortgage meltdown that started a few years ago has trickled up from Main Street to decimate Wall Street. The largest financial institutions in our nation, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, have fallen into brink of bankruptcy. I am voting in favor of the Financial Rescue Legislation because it is a significant improvement--by including taxpayer protections and strong oversight--over Secretary Paulson's original $700 billion proposal, and because inaction could have a devastating impact on our already unstable economy. I still will work to ensure that Congress does more to rescue our economy in the long term, sensitive to the variety of kinds of work New Jerseyans perform from factory to financial district from farm to pharma. There are thousands of my constituents who are not traders or high powered executives but still work in these impacted industries. Furthermore, millions of Americans who have retired or are nearing retirement have seen the value of their pensions shrink or dwindle away. If day to day credit tightens up, small business may not be able to make payroll and farmers may not be able to get by until the harvest is sold. We need to act to ensure that retirement funds and pension plans are not devastated by investments that have lost value in a jittery market. President Bush and Secretary Paulson have told us that this rescue must be done immediately or else our fiscal house would collapse. Indeed we must act--but we must act wisely and thoughtfully to stand behind our institutions, restore confidence in our markets, and protect millions Americans who would be affected by a continuing meltdown. If the President had his way again, he would have ridden a wave of fear and railroaded Congress into passing Secretary Paulson's original three-page proposal asking for $700 billion--with no oversight--to bailout the financial services agencies. I would not support the original plan, and while I have reservations of the compromise bill before us today, after careful and thoughtful review I believe it is a significant improvement to the original Bush-Paulson plan. For the last 9 days the President, the leadership in both parties and Secretary Paulson worked to come up with a more palatable proposal. The over 100-page bill that this body is considering today is a far improvement over what we started with. I wish that we had more time to look at this proposal closely and determine that we are using the taxpayer's money wisely. If there is one thing we in this body should know it is that acting quickly can be worse than not acting at all. However it is essential that the world know that Congress will stand behind our institutions and avoid a financial collapse. There are some vast improvements over the Paulson-Bush proposal in H.R. 3997. This legislation includes taxpayer protections and does not simply hand over $700 billion to the treasury. My constituents rightly are concerned about what they would get for $700 billion. Instead this legislation would parcel out this funding in much smaller amounts so we can monitor the effect that it is having on the economy. It would release $250 billion immediately, another $100 billion if the President can certify the need for such an investment, and the final $350 billion would require the approval of Congress and the President before it would be available to the Treasury Department. It would give taxpayers a share of the assets recovered, and it is likely that we would recoup much of our investment. The CBO estimates that this bill would only truly cost $10 to $30 billion, and requires the President in 5 years to come up with legislation which would recoup funds lost from the financial industry. And it would help keep families in their homes by allowing the Government to work with loan servicers to change the terms of mortgages. The bill includes strong oversight and transparency, creating an oversight board appointed by Congress and instituting GAO oversight and audits at Treasury. It would include limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives. This legislation would also require the study of the way that our markets are regulated to make sure that this type of crisis does not happen again. This is a far from perfect bill. I have concerns about the amount of power that we are vesting in the Secretary of the Treasury. I believe that we should have included a provision requiring assets to be valued at their actual worth rather than just requiring a study of the flawed mark to market industry. This legislation should have had stricter restrictions on ``golden parachutes'' to ensure that CEOs do not profit from the Federal Government's stepping in to correct their bad decisions. It was my hope that we would decide to shore up the bad mortgages and help the American families struggling to make ends meet similar to the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, a Federal program that shored up a collapsing market in the past. Today's vote does not preclude us from acting further. We also must invest in the real economy and act to shore up the bad mortgages and help American families struggling to make ends meet. One approach would be similar to the Home Owner' Loan Corporation, a 1930s-era Federal program that shored up a collapsing market in the past. We also must reform the way the FDIC manages risk to accurately reflect the assets that banks hold, rather than the flawed ``mark-to-market'' requirements that led to this mess. Ultimately, we must change the failed philosophy that favored no regulation and no oversight and allowed this crisis to happen in the first place.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7110, the Appropriations for Job Creation and Preservation, Infrastructure Investment, and Economic and Energy Assistance Act of 2008. There is no denying that our country is in the midst of a financial crisis. While those in the media continue to focus on the crisis on Wall Street, they have forgotten that American families have been struggling for months. The unemployment rate has been steadily increasing, reaching 6.1 percent this month, the highest level since 1992. 84,000 Americans lost their jobs in August and 605,000 have lost their jobs this year. Employed Americans are continuing to struggle from increased energy and food costs, and decreasing wages. Many are at risk of losing their pensions due to bad decisions made by Wall Street. The legislation before us today would directly help those struggling on Main Street and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it. H.R. 7110 would provide immediate assistance to those who need it most. It would extend unemployment benefits by 7 weeks for workers who have exhausted regular unemployment compensation. It would help provide healthcare to the growing number low-income children and families by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid health costs. It would provide $2.6 billion for food stamps to address the rising food costs for seniors, people with disabilities and very poor families with children. It would also increase access to job training for youths and for workers who have lost their jobs to help them to find new employment. This legislation would help to grow our economy by providing tens of thousands of jobs by making a significant investment in our nation's infrastructure. H.R. 7110 would provide $12.8 billion to improving our nation's aging highways and bridges. It would contribute $12.5 billion for investment in our nation's water resource infrastructure, $3 billion for repairing crumbling schools, $5.1 billion for expanding public transportation including Amtrak, and $1 billion for improving public housing. H.R. 7110 would also provide for our long term energy needs. This legislation would provide $500 million to accelerate the development of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. Additionally, it would invest $1 billion in advanced batteries. This legislation would provide some much needed relief to America's families as they struggle through these tough economic times. However there is much more that needs to be done to keep our economy strong in the long term. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find real solutions which will help to keep America's economy strong.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, our government has spent $1.5 billion in what is a failed policy for our Nation's children. Our investment in abstinence-only education has failed in giving our teenagers the medically accurate, life-saving information about birth control and sexually transmitted infections they need to make informed decisions. According to the Centers for Disease Control, one out of every four teenage girls in the United States is infected with a sexually transmitted disease and 40 percent of women will get pregnant before they reach 20 years of age. The facts confirm what many of us here in Congress have been saying for years, abstinence-only programs do not work. This is a public health concern and we must reject funding for abstinence-only programs they are ideologically driven and are wishful thinking. Citizens in my district are demanding comprehensive sex education to keep our youth healthy and safe. A majority of voters in nearly every demographic category strongly support comprehensive sex education and want public schools to teach it, including 78 percent of Catholics. Congress must put an end to ineffective programs that only cover abstinence until marriage and start putting our money where it works: into comprehensive sex education. Our next generation is depending on us for accurate, lifesaving information, and it's time we gave it to them.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, which seeks to reform the way in which major credit card companies do business and strengthen consumer protections. This bill, which has the support of a wide range of civic and consumer groups, would restore fairness to the credit card industry, which has been severely undermined by the abusive and predatory practices of some lending institutions. H.R. 5244 would protect cardholders from arbitrary increases in their interest rates, by requiring companies to give 45 days notice before a rate increase. The bill would also prohibit credit card companies from engaging in the practice of ``universal default'' rate increases, in which companies increase interest rates on an existing balance for late payments to a different lending institution. Also, the bill would give cardholders more time to pay their bills and would forbid card companies from using misleading terms in advertisements. Consumers deserve fair and decent practices in their financial dealings. Credit card companies should not be allowed unfairly to manipulate rates and fees to the consumer's detriment. The events of the past week remind us of the danger of failing to regulate financial markets and institutions. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act would establish clear and fair guidelines for credit card companies, and would help Americans suffering from ever-increasing debt. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank my colleagues for supporting my resolution, H. Con. Res. 351, commemorating the 225th Anniversary of the Continental Congress meeting at Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey. On June 19, 1783, 80 soldiers defected from the Third Pennsylvania Regiment stationed in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in order to ``obtain justice'' from the Continental Congress. Outraged by the lack of compensation for their service during the Revolutionary War, these soldiers marched to the Nation's capital recruiting new troops to join them in their cause. By the time they reached Philadelphia two days later, the number of disaffected troops had swollen to 300. The Continental Congress held an emergency meeting at the Philadelphia Statehouse to decide how to counter this uprising only to emerge to an angry and armed mob ready to take by force the back-pay owed to them by their government. With the Nation's finances in disarray, the Continental Congress took refuge from the riot, and Continental Congress President Elias Boudinot ordered the body to reassemble in Princeton, New Jersey, on June 26 ``in order that further and more effective methods may be taken for suppressing the current revolt, and maintaining the Dignity and Authority of the United States.'' Congress descended upon the small town of Princeton, a village with little more than 60 homes, 300 residents, and three taverns which doubled as churches. In regard to the commotion brought to town by Congress, 19-year-old Princeton University student Ashbel Green, who would go on to serve as the President of the University, remarked ``The pace of things is inconceivably altered in Princeton within a fortnight. From a little obscure village, we have become the capital of America.'' The College offered Congress the use of Nassau Hall, where it met in the second floor library to conduct the essential business of our fledgling Nation. It was in these rooms that the foreign policy of our country began to be formed. However, Congress's time in Princeton was not all hard work. At Princeton's Fourth of July Celebration, members of the Continental Congress joined students of the University and townsfolk in celebration. According to Samuel Beach, a student at the college, at the end of the evening ``some were drunken and all were tired.'' Congress did not reconvene for five days. In August, the Continental Congress summoned General George Washington to Princeton to receive the formal thanks of the Nation for his dedicated service as commander-in-chief. Leaving Major General John Knox in charge of the encamped army at Newburgh, New York, General Washington traveled to the Rockingham estate in Rocky Hill, New Jersey with his wife Martha and a guard of dragoons. General Washington stayed at the Rockingham estate for the next three months, advising the Continental Congress on the creation of a peacetime military and pondering his military career. It is at Rockingham that General Washington completed writing his Farewell Orders to the Armies of the United States dismissing the troops and announcing his retirement. During the time that Congress met there Nassau Hall and the town of Princeton played host to three future Presidents of the United States, seven signers of the Declaration of Independence, nine signatories of the Articles of Confederation, and 11 signers of the Constitution. It is where the seat of government was located when John Adams, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin signed the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, marking the end of the American Revolution and establishing the boundaries of the new Nation. Although Congress's tenure at Princeton was brief, this community played a pivotal role in the formation of the United States of America. I would like to take a moment to recognize the unique role that New Jersey played in the American Revolution. In 2006, my colleagues in the New Jersey Delegation took action to help protect the battlefields and historic sites where this conflict took place. We passed legislation that created the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area linking together 14 counties in New Jersey where the War of Independence took place. New Jersey was truly the Crossroads of the American Revolution for a number of reasons, as thousands of troops marched through the State and fought on our soil. The State's strategic location between the British stronghold of New York and the rebel capital in Philadelphia meant that New Jersey and New Jersey citizens were at the crossroads of the founding of our new Nation. In fact, New Jersey had more military engagements during the Revolutionary War than any other State. Crossroads has proved to be an exceptional way to preserve New Jersey's unique history for future generations. I am pleased that the House of Representatives has passed H. Con. Res. 351 today commemorating the 225th Anniversary of the Continental Congress meeting in Nassau Hall in Princeton, New Jersey.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. We've all read the stories about wounded troops being forced to repay enlistment or reenlistment bonuses. Chairman Skelton is to be commended for including a provision that ensures that any servicemember who is retired or separated for a combat-related disability will not be required to repay any portion of a bonus or other benefit. The same provision ensures that the survivor of a member who dies on active duty will likewise not have to repay any bonus or benefit their deceased loved one was entitled to. I am also pleased this bill authorizes a much needed and well deserved 3.9 percent pay raise for our troops. Today we are also ensuring that active duty families, military retirees, and their dependents are not socked with higher TRICARE fees or co-pays by extending the prohibition on such increase. The bill also encourages beneficiaries to use preventive health services by waiving copayments for preventive services. We've all been troubled and saddened by the increased rates of suicide among servicemembers and veterans. To address this crisis, the bill establishes a Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces to bring together experts from both within and outside of the military to assess current service suicide prevention programs and policies and to examine the risk factors that can lead to suicide. The Secretary of Defense is required to develop a plan to improve suicide prevention based upon the recommendations of the task force. I urge Secretary Gates to convene this task force immediately and for the task force to complete its work as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, as is always the case in bills crafted by Chairman Skelton, this bill also authorizes additional necessary funds for key systems designed to help protect our troops. Two programs are of particular note. For example, the bill authorizes $1.7 billion to procure, sustain, transport, and field Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicles for our troops overseas. Additionally, the bill authorizes $2.2 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, JIEDDO, and urges that $10 million be used for Marine Corps and Army development of specialized counter IED dog teams. The bill also requires that the Director of the JIEDDO to develop a science and technology investment strategy for countering the threat of IEDs. Additionally, I'm pleased this bill requires the Defense Department to take additional steps to reduce its energy consumption, consistent with mission and operational requirements. The bill establishes the position of Director for Operational Energy Plans and Programs and creates senior operational energy officials within each service. It also authorizes $90 million for energy conservation programs on military installations. I regret that a number of provisions that were in the House version of the bill were not included in the bill before us, including provisions dealing with the use of private security contractors and detainee interrogation-related activities. I am especially disappointed that the current bill does not include the detainee videorecording provision I authored and that was included in the House version of this bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Skelton in the next Congress to correct this deficiency. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; I will vote for it, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill. In New Jersey, 132 of every 100,000 of our mothers, daughters, and grandmothers were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2004. It is difficult to find a person who doesn't know someone who is affected by it. Despite the prevailing medical standard of two to four days to recuperate and gain physical and emotional strength after breast cancer surgeries, ``drive-by mastectomies'' increasingly have become the norm. Women have been regularly faced with being sent home from the hospital a few hours after surgery by HMOs that refuse to pay for longer stays. This bill would guarantee a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for a woman having a mastectomy, and 24 hours for a woman undergoing a lymph node removal. Importantly, this bill will ensure that any decision to have a shorter hospital stay will be made by the patient and her doctor--not an insurance company more concerned with the bottom line than the health of the patient. Forcing women to leave the hospital too soon after surgery is dangerous and demeaning. This bill will provide breast cancer patients undergoing one of the most physically and emotionally traumatic experiences of their lives, the care and dignity they deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I hope the Senate acts quickly to get this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend, from Massachusetts. There will be a time when the history of the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is written, and we will look back and see when the last thread of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime was shredded with this agreement. Now, we can talk at length about the details of this cooperative agreement. We can talk about what a good friend India is and how responsible they have been, but the history will say that with this agreement the world lost the last bit of an international tool to control the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We will be left only with the ability to jawbone with our allies and to threaten our enemies. Countries will work out whatever deals they can and will, two-by-two. If we really believe that nuclear proliferation and loose nukes are the greatest threat to world peace and security, as I do, then we should be holding on to every tool we can find to prevent that threat. We should be working with India to strengthen the international nonproliferation regime, not collaborating with India to destroy it. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, Secretary Paulson's solution to the urgent financial crisis is wrong. The problem is that the financial institutions have been trading securities whose value they don't know and can't know because bad mortgages are mixed in with good mortgages in indeterminate amounts. For any problem, you should go to the root in order to solve it. The root here is that the bad mortgages mixed with the good mortgages have poisoned the financial papers. In buying those papers, the taxpayers won't know whether they are getting any value for their dollar, and neither Paulson nor the market will be able to determine the value. So go to the root. Repair the bad mortgages. It will help Wall Street and Main Street. It will restore confidence, liquidity and solvency. There is an antecedent. The Homeowners Loan Corporation in the 1930s dealt with a crisis of bad mortgages, put up $70 billion in today's dollars and rescued 1 million homeowners. It worked.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, here's the problem as I understand it with the financial crisis that is called the worst in decades, maybe ever. Time and complicated securities. The rescue must be done immediately or else the financial house will collapse, Paulson says. Second, the taxpayers say they don't know if they are getting anything of fair value for the $700 billion they are asked to put up. No one knows the value of these securities, and Paulson says there isn't time to find out. Trust him, he says. He won't pay too much. Maybe the market can even help him determine the fair value. Yes, we may need to act quickly to staunch the crisis of confidence. Yes, the government may have to commit a lot of money to prop up the value of the investments. But rather than coming to the rescue by standing behind the investment paper, which is a mix of good and bad mortgages that have poisonous bad mortgages mixed with good, rather than committing $700 billion to something that Paulson and Bernanke and others say they don't really understand, why not stand behind the mortgages themselves? At least then the public will know what they are getting for their $700 billion and it will help the homeowner, the neighborhood, the community, and the investor. There is an antecedent. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation of the 1930s through the 1950s helped people, individuals, with their mortgages. It was a Federal program that shored up a collapsing market. And, incidentally, when it finally went out of business, it showed a net plus for the taxpayer. Let's take a breath, show the world that the Government of the United States will not let the financial house collapse. And let's go to the root of the problem. I have been taking calls in my office from people who say ``help Main Street, not Wall Street.'' Well, in fact, by helping Main Street, we can help Wall Street. But by helping Wall Street, we don't necessarily help Main Street. Bailing out those holders of financial paper does not stop the homeowner from the foreclosure. If we go to the root of the problem, we can help both.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Today is a landmark day. Three cheers for Patrick Kennedy, Jim Ramstad and for the late Senator, my friend, Paul Wellstone. Today Congress makes clear that health is about more than having a healthy body, but being a complete individual from head to toe. We know that mental illness is treatable, yet because maybe one-third of the people affected do not receive the needed treatments, mental illness remains a leading cause of disability and premature death. Untreated mental illness is costly to individuals, to families, to companies large and small; yes, to the entire society. But from now on, millions of Americans who suffer from mental illness will receive full access to the treatment they need and deserve without higher copays and treatment limits. Finally, I am pleased to say that this bill protects States like New Jersey who go above and beyond coverage requirements that this legislation establishes. There is more to do, but this is a landmark, red letter day.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Guam. And I rise as the author of H.R. 160, the American revolution and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act, and to urge support of this legislation by my colleagues. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor today. Madam Speaker, from the shot heard around the world at Lexington to the beginning of the winning, when Washington crossed the Delaware, to the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, the stories of the American revolution bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our Nation's Founders. History is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it, live it, and the battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 provide a great opportunity for Americans to experience where and how the epic struggle for our Nation's independence took place. Preserving these American historic treasures is essential in remembering the sacrifices that our forefathers made to secure our freedom and independence, and essential for educating future generations about our rich cultural history. Unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl, unplanned development are constantly encroaching on many of the significant battlefields of that period. This encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to preservation of these historically significant sites. As Ms. Bordallo has just said, this spring the National Park Service published its report to Congress on the historic preservation of Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 sites in the United States. And this report shows that there is a great need to act and to act quickly to preserve these sites. Out of the 677 nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, 99 are already lost forever, 234 are fragmented or in poor condition, an additional 170 are in danger of being destroyed in the next decade. H.R. 160 will authorize the use of money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the preservation and protection of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields and related historical sites, in addition to the Civil War sites already covered under current law. And I might add, that law has been very successful. This legislation is patterned after the Civil War battlefields legislation which has been so successful. This bill will allow officials of the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments and nonprofit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites, and to provide up to 50 percent of the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. The story of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 crisscrosses 33 States, from New York to Louisiana, from Georgia to Oregon, and enacting this legislation will allow these States to better preserve their history and their role in these engagements. I have also introduced legislation that I hope Congress will pass next year to provide additional funding for the program created in H.R. 160, the American Revolution and War of 1812 Commemorative Coin Act. As the gentleman from Alaska alluded, my home State of New Jersey has a unique role in the American Revolution. In 2006, I am pleased to report, Congress took action to help protect the battlefields and historic sites where this conflict took place. We passed legislation that created the Crossroads of the American Revolution national heritage area, linking together 14 counties in New Jersey where more military engagements took place than in any other State. New Jersey was truly the crossroads of the American Revolution for a number of reasons, and I am pleased that we are taking steps to preserve the record of those engagements. H.R. 160 will allow many more historic battlefields to be preserved for our children's and our children's children to enjoy. We want to give Americans the opportunity to learn history. People who know history can be better citizens today and more engaged in current civic affairs. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008. Today our Nation faces a number of pressing environmental issues, including clean water, clean air, open space preservation, and the looming threat of global warming. Addressing these problems will become one of the dominant issues and challenges in the 21st century and our workforce needs the knowledge and skills to understand and address these complex environmental issues. I would like to commend my colleague from Maryland, Representative John Sarbanes, for his hard work on H.R. 3036, to expand and enhance environmental education. This Federal investment in environmental education will help prepare our Nation's youth as responsible citizens who will value and protect America's resources and landscapes. Environmental education is about more than just science; these programs can be designed to have a positive effect in reading, math, and social studies. Environmental education is best understood by those who have had the opportunity to touch it, breathe it, and live it. Where better to learn about the importance of our national resources than in our Nation's most special and protected places? Imagine seeing the effects of climate change firsthand at Glacier National Park rather than learning about it in the abstract in a classroom, or learning about the ecosystems in Great Swamps National Wilderness Refuge in my home State of New Jersey, or learning about the human genome project in Yellowstone where crucial breakthroughs about DNA were made. As a member of the Committee on Education and Labor, I had the privilege of working on this legislation when it passed through our committee. My colleague from Indiana, Representative Mark Souder, and I successfully offered an amendment to H.R. 3036 which would allow schools and local education agencies to partner with Federal agencies, including national parks, when developing and administering their environmental programs. I would like to share a letter of support from one of my constituents. John from Pennington, New Jersey, wrote ``As parents of a 7-year-old, we see how positive is the time he spends out back building his tree fort, or playing in Curliss woods, or attending summer camp at the Watershed . . . and how often his time before the TV seems deadening by contrast.'' I firmly support H.R. 3036, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Veteran Voting Support Act, and to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) for his leadership in offering it. I was honored to join him as an original sponsor of it, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. In a few short weeks, we will participate in two celebrations of our democracy: Election Day, the day upon which we will exercise our most fundamental right--the right by which we secure all others--the right to vote. And one week later, we will celebrate Veterans Day, the day upon which we honor those who always risk and who all too often give their very lives to preserve and protect our ability to engage in that fundamental right. Arguably, we should celebrate Veterans Day first, and Election Day thereafter, because without the sacrifice of the former we could not continue to be endowed with the latter. That is why I offer my heartfelt support for the Veteran Voting Support Act, which responds to a flawed policy of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that would have prohibited voter registration at VA facilities. The measure permits states to designate facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs as voter registration agencies, requires the VA to provide assistance with absentee ballots, and requires that nonpartisan organizations and election officials be given opportunities to assist veterans with registration and to provide voting information. Above all others, our service men and women should be provided with every convenience and resource to facilitate their ability to vote. This balanced measure does that, while protecting their privacy and preserving the high standard of their care. Our veterans' have fought for our right to vote, and we must now fight for theirs. I urge my colleagues to honor their sacrifice by supporting this measure.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Congress is even debating this matter. As this summer's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller made clear, governments have the right to enact gun safety laws consistent with the Court's decision Heller. Unregulated firearms in the capital would preclude the ability of the Metropolitan Police Department to track guns through registration and otherwise to help ensure that guns do not endanger Federal officials and employees, visiting dignitaries, tourists, and local residents. Unfortunately, some see this bill as an opportunity to try to undo the Supreme Court's decision, the effect of which would be to create a ``Criminal's Firearm Bill of Rights.'' Of greatest concern to me is that the proposed amendment to this bill would allow D.C. residents to cross State lines to purchase weapons, thereby weakening Federal anti-gun trafficking laws and encouraging the mass purchase of firearms outside of D.C. for resale to criminals or terrorists in D.C. We in New Jersey have lived very comfortably under our existing State gun safety laws--hunters, lobbyists, police, private citizens--but legislative interventions like the one proposed today undermine New Jersey's ability to keep its citizens safe. I can assure you that we in New Jersey do not want guns illegally purchased in D.C. being used in our State, which is why I did not support the amended version of this bill approved by the House.