Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 921, which condemns the recent attacks against the State of Israel and supports her right to defend herself. The United States has no closer ally in the Middle East and, at this difficult and troubling time, it is essential that the United States maintain its steadfast commitment to Israel and all her people. Today, my thoughts and prayers are with Israel, her brave citizens, the captured soldiers, and all the innocent people on both sides of the border with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It is important that America supports Israel as she defends herself against the deadly and destructive acts of terrorists. Those who committed these heinous attacks must know that they will not succeed in destroying the State of Israel, nor will they diminish the spirit of the Israeli people. Each day brings more rocket attacks from Hezbollah that target innocent civilians in northern Israel. These attacks must be stopped, and to do so Israel has the right to go after the Hezbollah terrorists who launch them from southern Lebanon with the assistance of Syria and Iran. Despite the commitment and good faith efforts made by Israel to build a lasting peace in the Middle East, the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah engaged in unprovoked attacks on Israel and kidnapped three of her soldiers. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, but Hamas responded with violence. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, but Hezbollah responded with terrorism. These terrorist organizations are killing innocent Israelis despite every attempt to demonstrate their genuine commitment to peace. I hope that this crisis ends soon. In fact, I think it would be beneficial if the United States helped to arrange a cease fire, but Israel will and should maintain control of her own security. The experience of the last weeks reaffirms the right of nations to defend themselves against acts of terrorism, especially by organizations that are part of sovereign governments. But there are other lessons for those who do not live in the Middle East. First, when there are opportunities to support moderate governments, we must do so. Part of the reason Hezbollah is still in south Lebanon is because it is backed by Iran and Syria, while the government of Lebanon was left without similar strong backing from the international community, including the United States. Second, we must also remember the fact that extremism incubates in societies ravaged by poverty, hopelessness and humiliation. We cannot eliminate terrorism simply by suppressing terrorists. We must also lift up the societies and groups upon which terrorists rely for their recruitment. And third, when confronting terrorists, every effort must be made to protect the civilians around them and prevent destruction to civilian communities. We cannot win the battle of ideas and prevail in the fight against extremism if the people we are trying to lift up are reduced to living in rubble. Madam Speaker, the bible recounts many miracles performed by God. And miracles seemingly have helped Israel flourish since its independence. As the first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion once said, ``in Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.'' I still strongly believe in the dream that has become the wonderful reality of Israel. I urge my colleagues to support Israel and to support this important resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, which would strip from the federal courts and the Supreme Court the ability to hear any cases related to the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill eliminates the basic principle of judicial review that was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison back in 1803. This bill should not have come to the floor today because it seeks to make a dangerous change to our Nation's system of checks and balances. For that reason, this bill was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee. Yet, the Majority has brought it up today to intentionally divide the House. This is not the first time. We have seen this before. In September two years ago, we had this same vote, and I opposed it then. The judiciary was designed to be the one branch of the federal government that is insulated from political forces. This independent nature enables the federal judiciary to thoughtfully and objectively review laws to ensure that they are in line with the Constitution. Throughout the development of our Nation, this check has been vital to protecting the rights of minorities. Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, I am certain that the founding fathers did not intend for Congress to use this power to shape the jurisdiction of the courts along ideological lines. This legislation will set a dangerous precedent by allowing Congress to avoid judicial review so that it can pass legislation that it thinks may be unconstitutional. This is a clear abuse of Congressional authority and a cynical attempt to question the patriotism of Members of this institution. Like every Member of this body, I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a way to express my loyalty to this Nation and its founding principles. I make it a point during my town meetings in New Jersey to lead my constituents in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I share the view of many Members that the current text of the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional including the phrase ``under God''. I expressed my support for the Pledge in its current form when I joined many of my colleagues in voting for a resolution that urged the Supreme Court to recognize the constitutional right of children to recite the pledge in school. That resolution was an appropriate way for me, as a Member of Congress, to express my belief in the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Unfortunately, those who support this legislation seek to alter our delicate system of checks and balances and make their own decisions unchallengeable--as if they were infallible. They are attempting to alter the intended framework of our government, which has met the needs of a diverse population and allowed us to remain indivisible in times of crisis for more than 200 years. We should not make this dangerous change to upset the balance of power established by our Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J. Res. 88. Just a few yards down the hall from where we are debating this discriminatory constitutional amendment today, in the Rotunda of this great Capitol, stands a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Every time I walk through the Rotunda, I remember Dr. King's struggle and what his life meant for me and for all Americans. For too long, the inalienable constitutional rights of all Americans were denied to many of our neighbors. As the leader of the civil rights movement, Dr. King helped secure equal rights for all Americans regardless of the color of their skin. One of the things that Dr. King fought against were the anti- miscegenation laws that existed at some point in 49 states. These laws prohibited interracial marriage and they were still in effect in sixteen states when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in 1967 because they denied the liberty of American citizens. Legal bans on interracial marriage were defended with all the kinds of arguments used by proponents of bans on same sex marriage: They would say that interracial marriages are contrary to the laws of God or contrary to centuries of social tradition or harmful to the institution of marriage or harmful to children. Would any Member of this body now defend those bans? Those bans were discriminatory and took away the rights of American citizens--in short they were what the Constitution was designed to prohibit. No one longs for anti-miscegenation laws today. We as a nation have learned from our mistakes. Or have we? We remember Dr. King for what he stood for, not just for who he was. As he said, ``man is man because he is free to operate within the framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to choose between alternatives. He is distinguished from animals by his freedom to do evil or to do good and to walk the high road of beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy.'' Today, I ask, will we do evil or will we do good? Will we keep the spirit of the Founding Fathers alive? Will we respect and honor the foundations of our constitutional government or will we chart a new course and, in the name of protecting an institution that is under no threat, shred the very premise of our Constitution. Our Constitution is the source of our freedom in this great country. For almost 220 years, the Constitution--mankind's greatest invention-- has allowed our diverse people to live together, to balance our various interests, and to thrive. It has provided each citizen with broad, basic rights. The inherent wisdom of the Constitution is that it doesn't espouse a single viewpoint or ideology. Rather it protects all individuals as equal under the law. In more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended on only 27 occasions. With the exception of Prohibition--which was later repealed--these amendments have affirmed and expanded individual freedoms and rights. Yet, this proposed amendment threatens to lead us in a dangerous new direction. This amendment would restrict freedoms, and codify discrimination into our guiding charter. We must think deeply about the ramifications of allowing such an amendment to be ratified. It would create a group of second- class citizens who lack equal rights due to the private, personal choices they and their loved one have made. It would also transfer to the federal government the right to recognize marriages, a power that had previously been retained by the States. This amendment is not only discriminatory and inhumane, it is also illogical. How does this actually protect marriage? What is it exactly about same sex marriage that is putting heterosexual marriage at risk? Do the proponents of the ban on same sex marriages want to annul all childless marriages or require all newlyweds to promise to have children? Do the proponents of this ban think for a moment that the marriage of loving people of the same sex are the case of America's high divorce rate among heterosexuals. It seems to me that other factors than this are responsible for the high divorce rate. I certainly agree that the institution of marriage and a cohesive family unit are vital to the health of our communities and the success of our society. Unfortunately, the amendment we are debating today does nothing to strengthen the bonds of matrimony, nor does it strengthen families or enhance our communities. In fact, it divides our communities, and shows contempt to a minority population. Throughout history, we have only moved forward when our society has come together to build a more perfect union, not intentionally divide American against American. No one should be denied the opportunity to choose his or her life partner. It is a basic human right. It is a deeply personal decision. Attacking gay couples who want to share lifelong obligations and responsibilities undermines the spirit of community that this amendment purports to strengthen. In 50 years will we build a statue to honor the great advances for our society that this amendment provided, as we do for the life of Dr. King? No. In the long shadow of history, this amendment and the philosophy behind it will be remembered alongside anti-miscegenation laws as offending the spirit of America and our founding principles. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the tremendous cost this amendment will have for our freedoms and I respectfully urge them to oppose it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, which will reauthorize expiring provisions of one of the most important and effective civil rights bills in the history of the United States. Passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked a pivotal turning point in American history, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its extension for another 25 years. As honored as I am to be a part of reauthorizing this landmark legislation, I am to the same extent disheartened that it remains necessary. Would that we could say, the 41-year anniversary of the legislation having come and gone, that 40 years had been enough to cure all of our electoral ills. But clearly it has not been enough, and it pains me deeply to have to look at my own country and acknowledge that some of its electoral abuses, although perhaps less overt, are at least as bad today as they were in 1965, if not worse. I wish to commend the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution for its exhaustive inquiry into the effectiveness of and continuing necessity for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Through this process, which was informed by elected officials, scholars, attorneys, representatives of the civil rights and election integrity community, the Department of Justice, other governmental organizations and private citizens, we can all be assured that we extend these critical voting protection measures for unquestionably just cause. The Judiciary Committee's report on the inquiry is compelling. Since 1982, for example, under the Voting Rights Act section 5 pre-clearance procedures, the Department of Justice has successfully screened out more than 700 proposed election procedure changes that were discriminatory. The rejected proposals included objectionable practices like discriminatory redistricting plans, relocating of polling places making elected positions appointed positions, and other such techniques. In fact, before the subcommittee even commenced its hearings in 2005, I co-moderated a day-long election reform forum in December 2004. Sponsored by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Common Cause, and the Century Foundation, the forum documented extensive and ongoing disenfranchisement activities. It was entitled ``Voting in 2004: A Report to the Nation on America's Election Process,'' and the reports delivered by election reform experts and civil rights groups are still available on the Common Cause website. It is important to note, however, that the last 40 years have not been a bad-news only story. The Judiciary Committee's report documents both the continuing shortcomings of our electoral system and improvements made to it by the Voting Rights Act. It shows that the Voting Rights Act has been effective, but much work remains to be done. For example, between 1965 and 1988, the gap between registration of White voters and Black voters in Mississippi narrowed from 63.2 to 6.3 percent, and from 50 to 7.4 percen in North Carolina. Similar increases in Black registration were experienced throughout the States covered by section 5 during that period. Meanwhile, the number of African-American elected officials has increased from 1,469 in 1970, to over 9,000 in the year 2,000. Over the period from 1978 to 2004, the number of Asian- Americans elected to office has more than doubled. The statistics also show that much work remains. The Judiciary Committee also found that in each of six southern States covered by section 5--Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and North Carolina--African-Americans make up 35 percent of the population but hold only 20.7 percent of the State legislative seats. Latinos represent the largest minority population in the United States, at 15 million residents, but occupy only 0.9 percent of the total number of elected offices in the country. I believe that the greatest invention of humans is our system of Constitutional democracy. It has transformed not just America, but the world, demonstrating that peaceful and productive government by the consent of the governed is possible. That consent--the very cornerstone of the system--is given by the vote. We have demonstrated that majority rule with protections of minority rights and minority influence is possible. The Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is the most fundamental right, as it is preservative of all others. The measure before us which will assure the continued life of the Voting Rights Act in the decades to come--is of monumental importance. I am also eager to continue the fight to improve the fairness, accuracy and integrity of our electoral system as soon as this historic measure passes. I hope my colleagues will rapidly work with me towards passage of my Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R. 550, to ensure that all votes are not only counted as cast, but can independently be audited so that both the losing side-actually, especially the losing side--and the winning side can accept the electoral results. The legislation would require a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast and other things to ensure the reliability, auditability, an accessibility of the voting process. In addition, and especially because the measure before us will eliminate the further use of Federal examiners to assist in assuring the accuracy, integrity and full inclusivity of voter registration lists, I hope my colleague will support me as I work to pass my Electoral Fairness Act, H.R. 4989, which will substantially enhance the protections afforded to voters under the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act in connection with the voter registration process. The legislation would establish fair and uniform rules governing the casting and counting of provisional ballots; ensure that adequate staffing, equipment and supplies be equally available at all polling places to minimize wait times for all voters; and protect the accuracy, integrity and inclusiveness of the voter registration rolls. I urge my colleagues to join me today in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, and committing themselves to working to preserve and advance its legacy in every possible manner.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation brought by the majority party that will help investors invest and help Fortune 500 companies increase their bottom line. I want to talk about 15 million people who will not be affected by this bill, who will not be investing any money this year, the 15 million people trapped by the low level of the Federal minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, we should be discussing legislation today to increase the Federal minimum wage. The Federal minimum wage has not been brought to a vote on the House floor because the majority party will not allow it to be brought. And yet millions of people are stuck at a low minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. Just think about it. You do not have to have a vivid imagination to understand how hard it is for a family, and many families we are talking about, not just high school kids, many families trying to get by on $5.15 an hour, the lowest level in purchasing power in 50 years. We will have a recorded vote in a few minutes on the previous question. This is not an arcane parliamentary procedure. Every editorial board, every citizen group, every voter ought to understand what this vote means. It means, will we have a vote on the floor about raising the minimum wage to something that is tolerably humane? We have the time to do it. Mr. Frank pointed out, yesterday we finished legislative business midafternoon, today we will finish in the midafternoon. Friday we won't even be in. We have time. We could do it. But I ask the majority party, do you think we have no time? Has the majority party no heart? Have they no brain? The evidence is clear: Raising the minimum wage makes economic sense. It is not just a matter of compassion and heart, although that should be reason enough to raise the minimum wage, but it is also good economic practice. We have the opportunity to do it. The minimum wage has been frozen for nearly 9 years at this low, inhumane rate. The vote on the previous question is a very clear vote; it is whether or not we are going to leave these people stranded at the low, inhumane, minimum-wage rate, or whether we, on the floor, are going to consider raising it. That is what the vote means.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time, but even more for bringing this issue to the floor. Yes, where is the time and place? Since 1997, the minimum wage has been frozen and millions of people have been stranded. I don't know of a better word to use. During that time we have seen congressional pay increase by several times the total amount that a minimum-wage earner would earn in a year. We have seen CEO compensation raised many times what a minimum-wage earner would earn in a year. I mean, the increase is that much. Mr. Miller talked about the 6 million people who are stranded. It is more like 15 if you consider all of the people who are indirectly affected by this also. The chairman said that there has been no discussion of minimum wages, and so why should we bring it up with this bill at this time. That is right, there has been no discussion. We are trying to find a place to have that discussion. Indeed, $7.25 is not a high wage. In fact, if the minimum wage were to be paid at the purchasing power that it used to have, it would be $9.05, still not a high wage, but considerably better than the minimum wage of $5.15. The chairman says this is a political ploy. Try to tell that to someone who is trying to buy gas, to buy food. You know, since the minimum wage was pegged, the price of bread has gone up, oh, at least 25 percent. The price of milk, at least 25 percent, the price of gas a couple hundred percent. The price of health care 100 percent, but I am not sure why we are discussing health care because no one on minimum wage can afford it. This is not a political ploy; this is about the ability of people to make ends meet and to feed their families. Yes, we are talking about families. The other side often says minimum wage, that only applies to kids on summer jobs. Try to tell that to the millions of people who are trying to feed families, children, pay for rent and buy gas to get to work. I ask the majority party, who has not found a time or place to discuss the minimum wage: Have they no imagination? We are supposed to be Representatives here. One of our challenges is to put ourselves in the shoes of the hundreds of thousands of people whom we represent. Have they no imagination? It shouldn't take much imagination to figure out how difficult it is to get by on today's minimum wage. Do they think that we don't have time to discuss it here on the floor? Of course, we do. They will say it is going to kill jobs. There is no evidence of that. In fact, the best evidence we can find, and this goes back to the days when Henry Ford increased the wages for his workers, the best evidence we can find is that increasing the salaries of hourly workers helps the economy. In States that have higher minimum wages, they have better job creation. So don't give us that, that this is going to hurt the economy. No, what it is going to hurt if we don't raise the minimum wage is 15 million people. We have the opportunity with this motion to instruct because the Vocational Improvement Act has the purpose of creating high-skill, high-wage jobs. All we are saying is that there ought to be a floor. If you are going to talk about wages, there ought to be a floor. For more than half a century, for three-quarters of a century almost now, it has been deemed appropriate for the Federal Government to set that floor. That is what we are asking to do now, to set it at least at a barely humane level rather than the inhumane level at which the minimum wage now stands. I urge support of the Miller motion to instruct.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the families of those who were killed in today's terrible bomb attacks on several Indian commuter trains. Reports indicate that these deadly attacks have claimed the lives of at least 135 people and injured more than 250 Indian citizens. My thoughts and prayers and those of many Americans are with the families of those affected. These attacks were perpetrated for an unknown reason but, of course, there can be no good reason or justification. I hope that United States officials will assist the Indian Government in tracking down those who are responsible. It was just over a year ago that a deadly terrorist bombing shut down London's transportation system. In March of 2004, similar bombing attacks ripped apart the morning commute in Madrid, killing 192 innocent civilians. We have been fortunate in the United States not to experience similar terrorist attacks on our railways. We must not be lulled, however. It is long past time to take the steps necessary to keep the traveling public as safe as possible. In this moment of grief, we must stand with our longtime friend and support her and all the Indian people.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761). I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act that more drilling, regardless of where it is, is the answer to energy independence. I have read in the papers this week that this bill will be considered on the House floor as part of an ``Energy week.'' Republicans would like to use this bill to claim that Democrats are not committed to ending our dependence on foreign oil or as a ruse to feign lowering gas prices before the July 4th holiday weekend. This is simply not true. Just so we have the facts straight, today we are considering a bill that will immediately lift a twenty-five year moratorium on offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the same twenty-five year moratorium that the House overwhelmingly voted in favor of continuing just a couple of weeks ago when we considered the Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations. The major difference between the two votes is that the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act will give states an ``opt out'' option. The so-called ``opt out'' option is alarming to me, because in truth, it is anything but giving states the authority to control what happens off their own coasts. In fact, what this bill does is first cut the moratoria area by 100 miles from state boundaries (current law establishes a boundary of 200 miles). Then the bill lifts the moratoria on drilling between 50-100 miles off a state boundary. Yes, many of my colleagues will assert that states then have the ability to ``opt out'' of offshore drilling leases. However, the complicated procedures outlined in the bill will actually make it difficult for states to use this ``opt out'' option and if they miss the deadline to file a petition, drilling can start immediately. My question for my colleagues who support this bill is: What happens if New Jersey is successful in opting out of new leasing but New York and Delaware decide to allow drilling. How can New Jersey coastal cities, businesses, and other interested parties be sure that accidents in neighboring states will not affect their industries? Many of my colleagues today have talked at length about the costs of this bill. An estimate initially done by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) concluded that the bill would add $69 billion to the federal budget deficit over the next fifteen years. CBO also estimates that the bill will cost taxpayers $11 billion over the next ten years. I would hope that many of my colleagues who care deeply about the fiscal discipline of this Congress would see the hypocrisy in passing this bill. I am most concerned with the bill's direct contravention of the National Environmental Policy Act provisions that promote environmentally friendly practices. Section 12 of this bill says that seismic air gun surveys and other exploratory leasing plans are exempt from preparing an Environmental Impact Statement before drilling can occur. The effects on our environment of seismic air gun surveys and other exploratory plans are well documented. Large blasts and seismic airgun arrays can cause severe damage to the hearing of many of the ocean wildlife that depend on hearing for survival in addition to the damage to the reefs and other ocean landscape. In 2004, the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee concluded that increased sound from seismic surveys was ``cause for serious concern.'' Allowing lease sales to be exempt from NEPA is misguided policy. For all these reasons I have outlined above, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I have said this before on the House floor and I believe it is worth saying again: drilling is not the answer to our energy concerns and until we in Congress work to promote energy conservation and sustainable energy supplies, we will continue on the same treacherous path we are on today.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to devote more resources to extracting energy from the ocean. We should be doing everything we can to develop all sustainable environmentally benign sources. Ocean sources, whether you are talking about thermal gradients, tidal power, wave power, have a lot, a lot of energy and in many cases they can be extracted in an environmentally benign way. My colleague from Washington spoke about a kind of technology, for example, Ocean Power Technologies Company located in New Jersey has an installation in Hawaii that extracts energy from the waves and converts that to electricity. The buoys are located well offshore. They are invisible to residents from the coast line. There are, of course, still questions to be resolved, still technologies to be developed; but the basic technology to harness the ocean's power already exists. What the gentleman from Washington is proposing makes great sense.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this partisan and ill-considered resolution. This resolution will do absolutely nothing to stop leaks. It's just another cheap, hypocritical political stunt. My colleagues should know that only last month, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held an open hearing on the very issue of the media's role in leaks. What many of us observed at that hearing is that there are at least two contributing factors to leaks to the media. One of those is the use of the classification system to conceal improper, even potentially criminal, conduct by executive branch officials. One example of this was the original report by General Taguba on the Abu Ghraib abuse investigation. It was originally classified SECRET/ NOFORN but ultimately declassified in its entirety when the images of prisoner abuse appeared in the media. To the best of my knowledge, the House Intelligence Committee has never investigated why that report-- which detailed criminal behavior by American military personnel--was classified in the first place. What I do know is that we in the Congress must never allow the classification system to be used to conceal criminal conduct--which brings me to the second factor contributing to leaks of classified information to the media: the refusal of this Congress to take its oversight responsibilities seriously. As I've said before, this Congress doesn't exactly put out a welcome mat for those executive branch employees who seek to report misconduct or illegal activity by their agencies. If you don't believe me, just look at the status of the only bill before Congress right now that would actually offer some modest protections for national security whistleblowers. H.R. 1317, Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, was offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platt), last year. This bill would clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices, and require that nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements conform to certain disclosure protections. Last September, this bipartisan bill was reported favorably by the House Government Reform committee on a vote of 34-1, yet the Rules committee has refused to allow this bill to come to the floor for a vote on at least three occasions. This resolution shoots the messenger. A more useful approach would address the problems of overclassification, the lack of oversight, and whistleblower protections. If you want to stop leaks, if you want to ensure that classified information doesn't appear in the press, then give executive branch employees who have concerns about their agency's conduct a place to go with their concerns without fear of retaliation so that we can do our job: oversight of the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last night and earlier today I was in New Jersey, where thousands of my constituents have been affected by serious flooding, and I was absent on some rollcall votes. I missed rollcall vote 340. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 341, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' On 342, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On 343, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll call vote 344, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' On roll call vote 345, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll call vote 346, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' On 347, I would have voted ``no.'' On 348, I would have voted ``no.'' And had I been present on rollcall 349, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the goals and ideals of National Entrepreneurship Week. As you are well aware, businesses today face global competition at an unprecedented level. Outsourcing, off-shoring, and supply-chaining have opened new avenues to maximizing profit, but also pose dangers to local companies and their employees. The impact can be felt all over the country. It is important that we recognize the critical role entrepreneurship plays in sustaining an innovation driven economy. The lifestyle and economic success we enjoy as a Nation are in large part the result of successfully leveraged technologies by some of our most creative thinkers in commerce. Our natural advantages as an economic superpower are waning, and we must commit to maintaining our leadership role in the global economy. This means continued support of 7(a) small business loans, modernizing and making permanent the tax credits for research and development, and adequately funding the Small Business Administration. We must also recognize the need for educating our next generation of innovators. Along with teaching math, science, and engineering skills, teaching entrepreneurship to the next generation of leaders is one of the best investments we can make in our economic future. Entrepreneurship programs and research offer the knowledge to grow pioneering ventures that provide jobs and contribute to development. A systemic improvement in these areas also makes for better informed policy makers, investors, and support organizations that can better create an environment to foster innovation and entrepreneurial success. America has prospered when it has led, particularly in the fields of business and science. I believe we are at a ``Sputnik'' moment, and need to rise to the challenge of new and changing global landscape. It is vital that we do so with creativity and imagination.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of providing the social and nutritional support that older Americans need, and in support of the Seniors Independence Act of 2006. Since originally enacted in 1965, the Older Americans Act has been an important vehicle by which senior citizens in need have received nutritional support, community service employment, pension counseling services, protections against neglect and abuse, and many other services. Nutrition services through Title III of the Older Americans Act, such as the ``Meals on Wheels'' program, are essential in helping senior citizens who cannot prepare their own food to still have access to convenient and nutritious meals. The program serves those most in need, such as the aged, the less affluent, those who live alone, and members of minority groups. I was pleased that I was able to amend the Seniors Independence Act during markup to stop the Department of Labor from using an unfair calculation of income to determine eligibility for Title V seniors community service employment programs (SCSEP). In January 2005, the Department of Labor issued a ``Training and Employment Guidance Letter'' that unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for Title V. Instead of discounting certain forms of income like veterans' compensation, Social Security Disability Insurance, unemployment compensation, and a portion of traditional Social Security benefits, the new regulation mandated inclusion of that income, thus making fewer seniors eligible for vital services. It would be inconsistent to state that the program targets persons with greatest economic need and persons who are disabled, and then use their Social Security income or disability benefits to exclude them from participation. It would also be a mistake to hold someone's service in the Armed Forces against them in determining their eligibility for employment assistance. The amendment that I offered in the Education and the Workforce Committee restores the eligibility criteria to the pre-2005 levels, and it was unanimously agreed to. I thank Chairman McKeon and the rest of the committee for their help and cooperation on this issue. Mr. Speaker, the Seniors Independence Act of 2006 reauthorizes vital services for some of the most vulnerable Americans, and those in greatest need. I rise in support of H.R. 5293, and I urge its passage by this body.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Well, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and related issues. I know the gentleman was instrumental last year in facilitating the establishment of specific guidelines for the treatment of detainees, and I hope that once again he can help refine and strengthen our policies in this area in conference. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Murtha, and I would invite participation of the chairman if he is so inclined, because I have an issue that I hope the conferees will consider when they meet to work out the final version of the bill. Specifically, I would like to ask that the conferees examine the need to include funding to provide for the videotaping of interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody. Now, as Members of this House know, I have before the House a bill that would, if enacted, require that all interactions between detainees at Guantanamo and similar facilities and U.S. personnel be videotaped. Videotaping interrogations would not only help deter any claims of actual or potential abuse of detainees, but just as importantly, it would protect the interrogators from false accusations of abuse. Indeed, across this country, including in my own district, many police departments routinely videotape interrogations for precisely these reasons. It is a powerful and effective tool for protecting both the interrogator and the one being interrogated. Additionally, videotaping interrogations would ensure that the maximum possible intelligence value is gained during and after the interrogation sessions. If analysts and linguists have the chance to review videotaped interrogations, they have additional opportunities to evaluate both the quality of the information gleaned from the interrogation, but they will also be able to look for body language and other clues about the truthfulness of the person being interrogated. And I should mention that the legislation I have and what we are talking about here has been endorsed by a variety of groups as an effective way to conduct interrogations with the protections of all involved, and I know they would be supportive of the conferees acting on this request. I hope that I can have the cooperation of my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLT. The gentleman is correct. I am informed, well, most recently by a trip to Guantanamo by the Armed Services Committee staff, that videotaping of detainee interrogations has not been conducted consistently and uniformly.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I salute Mr. Murtha, and I salute the servicemen and -women in the field, recovering at Walter Reed, and waiting to serve. This is a critical matter that we waited far too long to debate on this floor. And instead today we now get a meaningless resolution that says, well, stay the course, whatever that means. Well, today I was meeting with some seventh and eighth graders. And I asked them to help me put in perspective what we are talking about here today, what would we say that 10 years from now we wish that we had said about the war in Iraq. The first one said, too many lives have been lost already. The second one said, the reasons for going to war were wrong, maybe even deceptive. The third said, the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were before. We should ask ourselves how posterity will regard Congress for giving President Bush everything he asked for without oversight, without accountability. There are shifting rationales for war: oh, it was weapons of mass destruction; oh, no, it was retribution for September 11; no, actually it was about human rights abuses under Saddam; no, actually it was containment and disarmament and the U.N. were not working. No. No. It was to stand up a democracy that could be emulated throughout the Middle East. No, it was to protect America's strategic interests, including oil. And today we have heard over and over again a response that this is about terrorism. No, it is not about terrorism. This is not about Khobar Towers. It is not about the USS Cole; it is not even about the World Trade Center. Today's debate is about Iraq, a war of choice. And this is a resolution that says, stay the course. The other side, Mr. Speaker, is engaging in classical misdirection. This has nothing to do with terrorism except that Iraq has now become a breeding ground and a training ground for terrorists. And meanwhile the war has warped American priorities and cost us dearly. Numerous powder kegs around the world are being ignored. International standing and our ability to counter terrorism is hurt. Here at home, I must say, Hurricane Katrina crystallized American thinking when they realized that the President and Congress were putting our attention, our resources in Iraq and not for the needs of the people here at home. History will remember this war as a colossal blunder. When we leave Iraq, and I hope we will begin immediately, no one will wish that we stayed longer. No one will look back and think the current course could ever have been successful. This war is not making us safer. It is not making Iraq safer. The generals understand that. You have heard that today. The large majority of the Iraqis understand that. The U.S. public understands that. And, yes, even seventh graders in New Jersey understand that. Let us begin our redeployment immediately, rather than approve a meaningless stay-the-course resolution.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I salute Congressman Murtha and I salute the servicemen and women in the field, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and those waiting to serve. I rise today to oppose the resolution before us today because it does nothing to ensure a more stable and secure Iraq nor does it do anything to bring our troops home from Iraq. My constituents have asked me when Congress will get serious and have an open discussion about our future plans and polices in Iraq. Today, we begin to answer their calls. But we cannot stop today. We should debate the war in Iraq everyday on the House floor. Yet rather than seriously and substantially debating the issues at hand, the Majority has presented self-congratulatory resolutions that intentionally seek to divide the House. Today is no exception. Earlier today, I meet with a group of 7th and 8th graders from my Central New Jersey district. I asked them what I should say to put the Iraq War in perspective. The students offered a number of observations. One said that too many lives have been lost already. Another said that the reasons for going to war were wrong, maybe even deceptive. A third said that the Iraqi people are worse-off today. They are right. Ther longer U.S. troops remain in Iraq the worse the conditions on the ground get for the Iraqi people. I spoke with Senator Byrd (D-WV) the other day, who was here for the deceptive Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He says that is one vote he would like to take back. I am not saying that Iraq is another Vietnam, because the two are different. But we should ask ourselves how will posterity regard Congress for giving President Bush everything he asked for without any oversight or accountability. The shifting rationales for the war in Iraq have led to the lack of a clear understanding of why we are there, or how we achieve victory. Our mission cannot be accomplished because there is no clear mission. There have been a number of rotating rationales offered for the war. One was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the threat of a terrorist attack on one of our cities. Then it was Saddam's human rights abuses. Another was the argument that the United Nation's disarmament and containment efforts were not working and that UN resolutions were being violated. Then it was to stand up a democracy to be emulated across the Middle East. Another was to protect America's strategic oil interest in the region. And as we have heard over and over today, it was to fight terrorism and a response to the terrible attacks on September 11th. No it is not about Khobar Towers, or the USS Cole or even the terrible attacks on the World Trade Center. Today's debate is about Iraq, and this is a resolution that says ``stay the course.'' This is all classic misdirection. We need to remember that there were no terrorists in Iraq involved in the September 11th attacks. In fact, there were no terrorists threatening us from Iraq before we invaded. The War in Iraq is not about terrorism, except to the extent that Iraq has become a haven and a training ground for terrorists. We must also recognize that our country was propelled into the conflict under false pretenses. That has implications not only for how we got into Iraq, but for why we need to get out, and how we should view future claims of threats to America based on questionable intelligence and even more questionable assumptions. The war in Iraq has warped American priorities, and cost us dearly in terms of lives, money, and lost opportunities for progress at home and abroad. It has hurt our international standing and our ability to counter terrorism abroad. Numerous powder kegs around the world, have been ignored. Here at home, Hurricane Katrina crystallized for the American people the fact that the President and this Congress were willing to place our attention and resources in Iraq, at great cost to our ability to help our own citizens here at home. This includes the short-changing of homeland security measures for our ports, railroads, and chemical plants. Repeatedly, Democrats have tried to get the Congress to invest in these areas, and repeatedly we've been told there is not enough money. And yet, we pay for the war in Iraq--to the tune of $11 million per hour. History will remember this war in Iraq as a colossal blunder. When we leave Iraq--as I hope we will, starting immediately--no one will wish that we'd stayed a little longer. No one will look back and think the current course could have ever been successful. To their credit, our troops have done everything we have asked them. They are heroes. But we have placed them in the middle of a budding civil war. The President's failed strategy has made their jobs impossible, and his refusal to change course has continued to make them targets on the ground. It is time for a more sensible course of action in Iraq. Only a negotiated settlement with broad international help will prevent civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. We need to ensure that we work together with the community of nations and the United Nations to have any hope for peace, security, and prosperity in Iraq. We have tried to do this almost single handedly for too long and it is time to work with the international community to reconstruct Iraq. I have said for almost a year now that the United States must redeploy our troops from Iraq. I am a cosponsor of Congressman Murtha's legislation, H.J Res. 73, which would redeploy the current forces in Iraq at the earliest practicable date. That is because the presence of our troops, who are serving valiantly and ably, is improving neither our security nor that of the Iraqis. In fact, our presence itself is unifying Saddam Hussein loyalists, al Qaeda sympathizers, and many civilians against us. Our presence is fueling the insurgency. Redeploying our forces does not mean walking away from Iraq. Iraq's security forces and government will need our continued moral, political, intelligence and in some cases, financial support. But the hard work of securing the country and building a new society is one that only the Iraqis can do. Reducing and refining our military and political presence in Iraq is the necessary first step in that process. If we are to defend America and our allies from the global jihadist threat, our continued presence in Iraq defeats that purpose. It has been and remains a deadly and unnecessary misadventure that has compromised our ability to advance our interests around the world and at home to defeat the larger threat we face. To get back on course in the global war against al Qaeda, we must change course in Iraq, and now. This war is simply not making us or the Iraqi people safer. The generals understand that. A majority of Iraqis understand that. The majority of the American people understand that. Seventh graders from New Jersey understand it, as well. Let's begin our redeployment immediately so that we can refocus our efforts where they belong: on rallying the world to the cause of defeating Osama bin Laden and those who follow him.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery Conference Report, H.R. 4939. This supplemental bill, totaling $94.5 billion, is the largest that the House of Representatives has ever considered. This is almost $3 billion more than the bill the House considered earlier this year. As I have said repeatedly on the House floor, I strongly oppose using so-called ``emergency supplementals'' to fund nonemergency, clearly foreseeable expenditures. This bill provides $72 billion for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that our troops are on the ground in these dangerous places is not a surprise. They have been in Iraq for almost 3 years. Their needs are well known to everyone, except, it seems, the President and his budget staff. Every year, the President fails to budget for the cost of military operations, and every year he pretends that the war is an unforeseen ``emergency.'' Funding our soldiers this way is dangerous because it leaves them ill-equipped and subject to last minute actions like this by Congress. If, by contrast, we funded military operations through the normal budget process, funding decisions would be made in the open and with the appropriate scrutiny they deserve. It would also allow for long- term planning and more thoughtful budgeting. We have all read about the contracting waste and fraud that has occurred in Iraq. A number of no- bid and open-ended contracts have wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars. This waste probably has made a few crooked businessmen wealthy and done nothing to protect our troops or help build a more stable democracy in Iraq. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I refuse to continue to fund a failed policy. I opposed this war because I did not think the President had made a convincing case for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and I opposed his illegal doctrine of preemption. Since then I have only been heartbroken by the utter incompetence of the planning and execution. Our service members are doing outstanding work, and I salute their sacrifice. But the policymakers in Washington have let them down and put them in an impossible situation. As I said in a letter to Secretary Rice last September, it is time to begin bringing our soldiers home. Spending good money after bad on a failed policy puts our troops and our national security in even greater risk. Let me talk for a moment about the other good portions of this bill which were attached by the majority in a cynical attempt to buy votes for the overall bill. There is true emergency funding in this bill. But it is money for Sudan and the gulf coast, and the preparation for the avian flu, not Iraq. This bill contains $1.9 billion to meet the pressing border security needs that exist because the President has not made funding for border security a priority. Unfortunately, the bill contains $708 million to pay for the deployment of National Guard troops to the border. This is a bad idea that will further burden National Guard units across America at a time when they are stretched historically thin. This bill also contains $19.8 billion to help ensure that we meet our commitments to rebuild and restore the gulf coast. As we begin another hurricane season, my prayers are for the safety of all Americans who live near the coast. Yet prayers alone will not prevent flooding and help towns recover from hurricane related destruction. A strong federal commitment is needed to ensure that we remain at the highest state of readiness possible and that we can respond to all hurricane related natural disasters. Finally, this bill includes desperately needed funds for the Sudan. I am glad that this bill will provide $350 million in emergency humanitarian food assistance. There is additional funding for international disaster assistance and famine assistance, and $126 million to sustain the African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping forces. I am sorry that these true emergency funds were attached to the foreseeable spending for the ongoing operations in Iraq. I have voted in the past for rebuilding the gulf coast and ending the genocide in Darfur, and I will continue to do so. But I will not fund a failed policy in Iraq that is jeopardizing our soldiers needlessly, stoking the insurgency, draining our national resources, and doing nothing to protect Americans from terrorism at home.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 does not fully fund the Help America Vote Act, HAVA. HAVA was passed in the wake of the 2000 election, and authorized almost $4 billion to improve the administration of elections in this country. The 2004 election was a strong indication that there is much work yet to be done in the area of election reform in this country. And yet here we are, fast approaching Federal elections which are to be the first ones that take place under virtually all of HAVA's requirements, and hundreds of millions of dollars in funds authorized under the bill remain unappropriated. Although the appropriations bill before us includes almost $17 million in funding for the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, which is nearly $3 million more than was appropriated to the EAC for fiscal year 2006, it still provides no funding whatsoever to help States meet their voting system requirements--especially the disability and language access requirements--under title III of the act. HAVA authorized $3 billion in so-called ``requirements payments,'' and has to date appropriated only $2.328 billion. States across the Nation are struggling to meet HAVA's voting system requirements, and $672 million in authorized funds remain unappropriated. And not one dime of that amount has been requested in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget nor provided for in this appropriations measure. HAVA also authorized $100 million to promote access to the polls for disabled voters, of which only $44 million has been appropriated to date, and $40 million for protection and advocacy systems, of which just under $17 million has been appropriated to date. I understand that the Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill to be reported out of committee today will include approximately $11 million in funding for the former accessibility grants, and approximately $5 million in additional funding for the latter protection and advocacy systems. However, these new appropriations still leave a total of approximately $63 million in authorized disability access payments unappropriated. There are certainly many important demands upon us, but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is more important in a democracy than the fairness and integrity of the electoral system. I rise today to register my disappointment that the measure before us provides no funding to help States meet their title III requirements under HAVA, and to urge my colleagues to work with me when the Departments and Labor and Health and Humans Services appropriations bill comes to the floor next week to fully fund HAVA's disability access payments.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by Representative LaTourette to fully fund Amtrak. In fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration attempted to only provide $360 million to maintain commuter and freight service operated by Amtrak. With a great deal of support from many parts of America, Amtrak funding was restored to $1.3 billion. Once again we are considering a bill that underfunds Amtrak needs to maintain its current operations. Amtrak is funded at a mere 900 million to continue its operations and make capital improvements. This is 33 percent less than current funding levels for Amtrak. This is $698 million less than Amtrak requested to continue operations and invest in capital. The Oberstar/LaTourette amendment increases funding for Amtrak to $1.114 billion. The Northeast Corridor relies heavily on Amtrak's infrastructure and skilled workers. New Jersey Transit estimates that over 77 percent of its daily passengers would be affected if--New Jersey Transit could no longer operate its trains over tracks owned by Amtrak. Many of my colleagues contend that the Northeast Corridor is the only area that depends on Amtrak. This is simply not true. According to a report recently published by the Government Accountability Office, across the country 18 different commuter agencies depend on the infrastructure and services that Amtrak provides, including commuter rail agencies in Dallas and Seattle. There are currently seven new agencies being planned across the country as well. If we do not continue to fund Amtrak at the levels they need to function, a shutdown is imminent. This would be detrimental to commuter rail agencies that depend on Amtrak-owned tracks and infrastructure and skilled Amtrak employees. The GAO confirms the effect a shutdown of Amtrak would cause: ``Given the dependence of more commuter rail agencies on Amtrak for services and infrastructure, an abrupt Amtrak cessation would likely result in major disruption or shutdowns of commuter rail service throughout the country.'' We have a responsibility to promote mass transit and provide adequate funding for States and local transit authorities to move passengers effectively. Rail transportation is essential for easing traffic congestion in our most densely populated areas, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting our environment, and preserving open space across the country. On May 1, Amtrak celebrated 35 years of service to our Nation. We celebrated Amtrak for its ability to integrate small communities with large cities by providing economic expansion, increased mobility, and environmentally sound transit. That is why I support the amendment offered by Representative LaTourette that would increase Amtrak funding. Now is not the time for us to cut funding for mass transportation. I urge my colleagues to support Amtrak and vote for the Oberstar/LaTourette amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I supported the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5441). The bill provided $33.1 billion for our Nation's homeland security. These funds will help our Federal, State and local first responders react to both natural disasters and terrorist events. Yet, funds appropriated in this bill represent only a 5 percent increase from the funds we appropriated last year and do not fully meet the homeland security needs of our country. Even though I supported the bill, I believe that we can and we should do more. I am disappointed that Ranking Member Obey's amendment to add $3.5 billion to the bill for transit security, border security, port security, first responders, and preparedness programs was rejected along party lines by the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee and was prohibited from being offered. These programs are essential to strong and robust hometown security. This indispensable funding would have been easily paid for by rolling back the tax savings that taxpayers with incomes over $1 million today received under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I am glad that this bill provides $19.6 billion for border security. This represents a 9 percent increase from current funding and shows that the House takes seriously the challenges we face in securing our Nation's borders. Yet it still falls short of the request made by President Bush. This bill also includes $4.2 billion for port and cargo security, which is a 12 percent increase over last year. After the controversy over the D.P. World's attempt to acquire operating control of a number of U.S. ports earlier this year, Congress finally recognized the need to invest in container inspection and radiological detection. This bill also includes increased funding for grants to State and local governments to improve port security. But more needs to be done. I was troubled that for the third year in a row DHS's rail and transit security grant program was flat funded at $150 million. This bill already provided $200 million for port security and $4.7 billion for aviation security. That is why I joined my colleagues Mr. Castle and Mr. Lynch in offering an amendment to increase funding for this essential grant program by $50 million. A clear majority of Congress agreed with us and voted to ensure that rail security received an increase in funding. I am glad to have led this effort to make a small but important step to ensuring that our nation's rail and transit providers have the resources they need to ensure the safety of millions of Americans daily. I remain troubled that nothing has been done in this bill to significantly reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I have long argued that FEMA should be removed from the Department of Homeland Security and be reestablished as an independent agency that reports directly to the President. Unfortunately, the House again has missed an opportunity to put FEMA on the road to reform. As we begin hurricane season, I cannot forget the destruction and deaths caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is time to remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security, where it never belonged. Despite the lessons learned in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, this bill also cuts funding for firefighter grants by 17 percent. It also provides $7 million less than last year for the office of Grants and Training, formerly known as the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Unbelievably, this bill cuts by 65 percent from a DHS program that helps Federal, State, local, and private organizations implement protection strategies and to provide training to State homeland security advisors. Congress has a duty to provide the American people with the best security possible in the wake of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. While this bill does not fully provide the funding our Federal, State and local homeland security officials have said they need, it does begin to meet their needs. I will continue to work with my colleague in Congress to ensure that we increase our Nation's investment in our homeland security.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). About a month ago the House debated this legislation under Suspension of the Rules, which makes it impossible for Members to offer amendments. H.R. 5254 did not receive the needed two-thirds majority necessary to pass under the Suspension calendar since many Members had serious objections to the proposed legislation. But we are here again today, considering this legislation without an open debate. Two Democratic amendments were ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. Representative Dingell and Representative Boucher offered a substitute, which would have created a new Strategic Refinery Reserve to give our country the ability to produce refined oil products during extreme energy situations. Representative Allen offered an amendment that would have struck the section of the bill requiring three closed military bases be considered as locations for refineries. So again today, we are considering this bill without the opportunity for real debate. H.R. 5254 is based on a false premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity. Oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation faces with energy. Instead of investing in sustainable energy sources to meet our growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways. Since the most recent spike in gas prices in early May, Congress has not considered one energy conservation piece of legislation. Instead we have considered a bill to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and we will try again today to build more refineries. I hear many of my colleagues express their commitments to sustainable energy sources, yet we continue to focus our legislative efforts on oil. We simply can not rely on oil to meet our future energy needs. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery. I am disappointed that Representative Allen's amendment was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee that would have struck this provision from the bill. In late April, I joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey State legislators for the Signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011. Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in central New Jersey. This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a military base. This is about allowing the Federal Government to overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their communities. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local communities.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, before Memorial Day Recess, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, Mr. Markey, the gentleman from Massachusetts, offered an amendment that would have cut $40 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a dangerous program about which we are still not fully aware of the consequences. I supported Mr. Markey's amendment, which unfortunately failed last night. This amendment would have funded GNEP at $80 million. The Energy and Water Subcommittee already cut funding from this program, stating ``serious reservations'' about the new program. Until there are no reservations about the program, we should not continue to fund it. The Department of Energy claims that the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will prevent misuse of civilian nuclear facilities for non- peaceful purposes by developing enhanced safeguards over these programs and technologies. According to DOE, the program will account for materials, control technology, provide transparency to validate peaceful uses, and review international agreements and obligations. Despite the claims of the Department of Energy, there are many consequences of this program that are costly and potentially very dangerous to Americans and the international community. Nuclear reprocessing is a dangerous endeavor. Reprocessing nuclear waste produces separated plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. If the plutonium remains bound in large, heavy, and highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies, it is nearly impossible to steal. In contrast, separated plutonium is not highly radioactive. The simple fact is it will never be as secure as it would be if left in the spent fuel rods. By producing additional materials that aid in the production of nuclear weapons, we are potentially enabling terrorists and other non-nuclear countries to create nuclear weapons. This is not the example we want to set for the world. Reprocessing also does not decrease radioactive nuclear waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that spent fuel could be safely stored in spent fuel pools or dry casks without significant environmental impact for at least 100 years. For the past thirty years, we have been able to dissuade countries from creating nuclear reprocessing programs on the premise that we ourselves are not involved. Another problem with GNEP is that the Administration has not been able to demonstrate to Congress how costly this program will be. Since the program was announced in February of this year, the Department of Energy has not provided Congress with an overall cost for this program. Congress has not had the opportunity to evaluate the merits of this program or determine if it is in our best interest, in the long and short term. With such a great undertaking, we must fully understand the effects of this program. I am disappointed that the Markey amendment failed. It is my hope that my colleagues will see the dangers of nuclear reprocessing and oppose this program when the final version of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill is considered in the next couple of months.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, before the Memorial Day recess, we considered the misnamed and misguided American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act (H.R. 5429). I voted against this legislation, which unfortunately passed the House of Representatives. As I have repeatedly stated, we must make a commitment to a rational energy policy that promotes sustainable energy sources and conservation; not continue the belief that we are going to drill our way to energy independence. Two weeks ago we considered the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill which funds our Nation's Department of Energy programs, water and science programs, and some defense and agriculture related programs. Unfortunately, instead of making a commitment to a rational energy policy, the Energy and Water bill continues our dependence on fossil fuels and continues our practice of poisoning our lands, oceans, and air. While the Energy and Water bill does increase funding for alternative energy research and development, we must do more. I was pleased to learn that energy supply and conservation programs will receive more funding in Fiscal Year 07 than they did last year. However, this is not even close to sufficient. Congress still fails to recognize the dire situation the world faces with regard to global warming and the urgency of the action we must take. It is apparent now to all but the willingly blind that we are altering our climate in dangerous and deadly ways, and that is threatening the ability of the air and the oceans to sustain us. We then considered a bill that will once again allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wonder when my colleagues will learn that drilling our way to energy independence is unrealistic and simply flawed logic. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, yet we only have less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Even if we find oil in ANWR, we will not even come close to lessening our dependence on foreign oil. We must focus on developing sustainable energy sources and encouraging conservation. We can do this by investing in programs that make our schools, office buildings and homes energy efficient. We must continue to invest in transportation systems that optimize technology to efficiently and effectively move passengers while consuming less energy. In 2005 the Energy Information Administration estimated that if oil was discovered in ANWR, it would only lower gas prices by about one penny per gallon twenty years from now. Responding to rising gas prices by drilling is simply not the answer. My colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, pointed out during debate on the House floor, that we have not considered one piece of conservation legislation since the most recent spike in gas prices in May of this year. When will we realize that there are other means to fulfilling our energy needs than destroying our environment and disrupting habitat and wildlife? It is essential for us to do something dramatic. It is not enough for us to just do a little bit better every year. This is the only way to actually work our way to energy independence. Now is the time for my colleagues to make a commitment to alternative energy sources. We must continue to fight to preserve our environment and develop energy sources that are clean, safe, and sustainable.