Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chair?

Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) who represents one of the areas that would be affected by offshore drilling, should this go forward.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple: ``On page 5, line 22, strike section 6.'' This amendment strikes language from the bill that requires the Interior Department to conduct a single multisale environmental impact statement for all of the new areas that would be opened under this bill. Now, it's not going to happen. We are not going to see this into law. I'm sure this bill is not going anywhere. But if it were, it would be an environmental disaster. The notion that one environmental analysis would be sufficient for lease sales in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, and Bristol Bay in Alaska is simply absurd. These are very different environments. The steps that would be taken to prepare for drilling would be different in each one. The steps that would be taken during drilling would be different in each one. The steps that would be taken to prepare against an accident would be different in each one, and the steps for a cleanup would be different in each one. In fact, it would be hard to imagine three environments that could be more different. Even along the Atlantic coast from South Carolina to Massachusetts there are differences. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that offshore drilling for gas and oil is occurring in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. It's been over 2 years since the worst environmental oil disaster in American history, the BP oil spill, and Congress has yet to enact a single legislative reform. This committee, instead of doing a bill that--seems to be motivated to try to embarrass the President, I guess, based on a false premise that the President is interfering with the oil industry. They should actually be trying to put in place corrections that have been pointed out that are needed following the knowledge we've learned from the BP oil spill. The independent BP Spill Commission gave Congress a grade of ``D'' for a legislative response. Now, the Republican majority has said they wanted to wait until all the facts were in before taking action to respond to the gulf spill. Well, the time has come. We've heard from the independent BP Spill Commission, Mr. Chairman; we've heard from the government's joint investigative team, Mr. Chairman; and those reports reached similar conclusions: The BP disaster was preventible, not inevitable. Those reports concluded that corners were cut, bad decisions were made, and stronger safety standards could have helped, in fact, could have prevented the disaster. In fact, just today, the United States Chemical Safety Board issued its first report on the BP oil spill disaster and found that, when BP looked at offshore operations, it ``focused on financial risks, not process safety risks.'' So that's what we should be doing here today. We should be strengthening the safety, the public health, and the environmental protections instead of saying we're going to drill everywhere and water down the environmental protections. Here we are considering the 11th drilling bill over the last 18 months. The Republican majority is, once again, seeking to open up vast, vast swaths of America's coastlines to drilling without proper environmental review. Mandating a single environmental impact analysis for the variety of lease sales included under this legislation is simply insufficient. Truncating environmental review will make drilling less safe, not more safe. Let me be clear: The authors of H.R. 6082 apparently believe that the Atlantic, the Pacific, and Bristol Bay are similar enough to warrant a single environmental assessment. An oil spill off the east coast would endanger 200,000 jobs and $12 billion associated with just New Jersey's fishing and tourism industries--and that's not counting the indirect effects as this money flows through our local economies. Bristol Bay and the North Aleutian Basin form the heart of one of the most productive salmon fisheries on the planet, contributing more than $5 billion every year to our economy, yet the underlying bill opens up these areas to drilling under a truncated environmental review. My amendment simply strikes the language from the bill that requires a single multisale environmental impact statement and would go a long way toward protecting the environment. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. If the majority Republicans continue to push their ``oil above all'' agenda, then we House Democrats will persist in our attempts to make offshore drilling safe--safe for the workers and safe for the environment--and to make sure that the American taxpayers are getting their fair share of return on the use of their natural resources. The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain that Americans feel at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. But did the Americans see increased profits from selling their oil as it was pumped from public lands offshore? No. As a result of a legal quirk in the 1995 law, oil companies are not paying any royalties to the American people on leases issued between 1996 and 2000--none, zero. In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, and these oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of all the oil produced offshore in the United States. They don't pay the American people one penny for their drilling regardless of their huge profits. It's just unjust. According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this big giveaway to oil companies. Yes, it's a giveaway. The Government Accountability Office projects that all this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 billion over the life of the leases. My amendment would recover these revenues that rightly belong to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. My amendment would offer oil companies a choice. They could choose either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf and not get new leases or they could pay their fair share and proceed with this willy-nilly drilling that would be allowed under this law, under this legislation. My amendment does not break contracts. It simply would not force companies to give up their leases. It would impose a condition on future leases. As the Congressional Research Service has stated: As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion in setting the qualifications of those with whom it contracts. These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history of the world, yet they receive more than $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. On top of that, they get to drill for free on all of these public lands. Because of a quirk in the 1995 law, which came about because that Republican Congress was not eager to make oil companies pay, we shouldn't continue to give them a free ride. If my colleagues on the other side are serious about paying down the deficit and realistically financing necessary investments in this Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to recover about $1 billion a year--actually, somewhat more than that probably--that is rightfully owed to the American people. It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off once and for all. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I cannot support this bill in its current form. It's telling that every domestic program in this year's budget is taking a hit--in some cases, a huge hit. The House majority seems perfectly fine with cutting grant funding for our firefighters, our cops, and other first responders. The House majority thinks it's good public policy to cut programs designed to help the most vulnerable in our society, but any suggestion that we need fewer defense contractors provokes howls of protest. Any suggestion that national security- related corporate welfare should be ended--and I'm referring to the over-budget F-35 program as a prime example--evinces the most hysterical rhetoric about ``weakening America's defenses.'' Let's deal with the facts. We spend more on defense that most of the rest of the world combined. We won the Cold War over 20 years ago, yet this budget continues to fund unnecessary and radically over-cost Cold War legacy weapons programs that we don't need, can't afford and won't help us deal with the kind of terrorist threat we face now and into the future. The House majority is throwing the poor under the bus even as it throws a kiss to the military-industrial complex. The bill also continues funding a war that should have been over long ago. As I've said since 2009, our continued presence in Afghanistan is prolonging the conflict, not helping end it. The President's ill- considered assassination-by-drone policy in Pakistan, which now features Vietnam war-style ``signature strikes'' against groups of individuals without verification of their status as terrorists, has led to the deaths of an increasing number of innocent civilians. Indeed, the escalation of the drone strikes and the loosening of the intelligence standards under which they operate comes even after Osama bin Laden was killed last year. The original rationale for invading Afghanistan--getting bin Laden and his associates--no longer exists, yet this bill continues to fund a war whose purpose has clearly been achieved. There is perhaps no greater example of a policy on autopilot than our war in Afghanistan, which is one of the many reasons I do not support this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. I would also like under general leave to insert in the Record a letter from the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the Marine Corps League to Secretary Panetta concerning this Vets4Warriors program. June 15, 2012. Hon. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: As a group of the nations' leading veteran service organizations we take very seriously our commitment to the men and women who serve in uniform. They have answered the call and put their lives in mortal danger to protect the nation from adversaries and to advance our national security interests. One of the most important things we can do to honor their service and give something back to those who have given us so much is to ensure that they have healthy conduits to alleviate their mental and psychological anguish. Unfortunately, the nation has not yet succeeded in bringing this to pass. Though many programs and alternatives have been explored by the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs, few or perhaps none have been as successful as the Vets4Warriors program. The program is based on the New Jersey Vet2Vet program, a nationally-recognized peer support program that has received critical acclaim for over 7 years. Vets4Warriors, the nascent program of the Army National Guard--a mere six months old--is showing incredible promise and we are confident that it will be as successful nationally as Vet2Vet has been in New Jersey. Already, this program has received over 7000 calls and nearly 500 inbound contacts through other means such as Internet-based chats. Vets4Warriors provides effective, on- going peer support for men and women from all service branches--past and present. Any military personnel, family member or veteran can call this toll-free line 24/7 and have the call answered immediately by a carefully trained veteran peer counselor. We believe there are none better positioned to understand and assist with the rigors of military life than someone who has lived it. The calls are all confidential and can be anonymous. The peer counselors are able to triage the callers' needs, provide crisis intervention, local referrals for any needed services such as mental health, financial counseling, legal aid, or a host of other possible needs. At all times, a licensed mental health professional is immediately available to the peer counselor, should the situation warrant it. The goal is to create a stigma-free environment that encourages service members to contact Vets4Warriors when any concerns arise and the peer counselors help prevent these problems from becoming crises. There is also a formal relationship with the National Veterans Crisis Line, so calls to Crisis Line that are not crises are transferred to Vets4Warriors and crisis calls to Vets4Warriors can be ``warm transferred'' to the Veterans Crisis Line. Vets4Warriors strives to use all existing resources and not duplicate any of them. These and other characteristics make this program unique and successful. However, what truly sets their work apart is that they show their commitment to individuals by proactively reaching back to each person that contacts Vets4Warriors to make sure they are getting the help they need, preventing problems from becoming crises. Vets4Warriors has made approximately 8400 follow-up calls to veterans who have contacted them--about 900 or 11% more than their incoming call volume. Every single call is logged into a database, so there is extensive information available on who is calling, why they are calling and the outcomes of the calls. Vets4Warriors employs 27 veteran peer counselors representing all branches of service, so callers may even choose a peer counselor by their military experience. The same peer counselor will maintain contact with the caller over weeks or months, until the issues are resolved. They will also become advocates for the callers, should that be necessary. To our knowledge, no other program provides this kind of personal investment in the service member and offers the variety of services needed to meet the diverse needs of our military members and their families. It is because of the enormous success of the program that we are so determined to ensure it receives the funding it needs to achieve long-term success. Recent developments have made us very concerned that the program will not be budgeted for in 2013, and we urge you to make funding this program a top priority. The investment is marginal, yet the impact is huge. The health and readiness of the military depends on personnel that are resilient against the stressors of military service, both on and off the battlefield. Having seen it first-hand, we believe Vets4Warriors is a tremendous program that must be given a legitimate opportunity to succeed. With your support, we have every reason to believe that it will make a measurable difference in the lives of many veterans, military personnel and family members, and we strongly urge you to ensure full funding for the program. Respectfully, Stewart M. Hickey, National Executive Director, American Veterans, Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD. Barry A. Jesinoski, Executive Director, Disabled American Veterans, Maine Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Michael A. Blum, Executive Director, Marine Corps League, Merrifield, VA. Peter S. Gaytan, Executive Director, The American Legion, K Street, NW., Washington, DC. Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., Maryland Avenue, NE., Washington, DC. In this letter, the five veteran service organizations note that of all the suicide prevention programs and alternatives explored by the Department, ``perhaps none have been more successful than the Vets4Warriors program.'' I raise this letter, Mr. Chairman, because just this past week, the National Academies of Science released a report on the DOD and the VA's response to this explosion of PTSD cases and suicide-related mental health problems for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to make sure that the successful programs are recognized; and to date, no servicemember or veteran who has used these Vets4Warriors or vet-to-vet program has taken his or her own life. They have been successful. One of the shortcomings in our government's approach to dealing with the suicide epidemic among servicemembers and veterans is the assumption that only programs within the DOD and within the VA are capable of dealing with this crisis. Our experience in New Jersey strongly suggests otherwise, and I ask the gentleman from Washington and the chair of the committee for their help in prodding the National Academies and the government at large in evaluating the potential positive role that community-based programs like Vets4Warriors can play in helping defeat the suicide epidemic among our troops and veterans.

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

Mr. HOLT. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Committee, but let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Washington and Chairman Young for accommodating my request, for the second year in a row, for an additional $20 million to be included in the appropriations bill for suicide prevention and outreach programs. The committee last year honored this request, and I think it's a clear demonstration of the committee's intent that the Department do more and more to end this epidemic of suicide among our Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve force. I do have a clarifying question I would like to pose to the gentleman from Washington. Is it the committee's intent that the $20 million in this legislation in additional suicide prevention funds be made available for successful suicide prevention programs, such as New Jersey's Vets4Warriors peer- to-peer counseling and outreach program?

Mr. HOLT. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HOLT. Reclaiming my time, I would reiterate my thanks to the chairman and to the ranking member for the strong attention and sensitive attention that they have given to this matter. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. The House passed its version of this legislation in May 2012, with my strong support. The Senate has elected to improve the loan guarantee and stock-pile authorities in its version, which I am also pleased to support. United States and Israel have built a strong, unique and special relationship, and passage of this legislation will only strengthen those bonds. The political changes that are sweeping through North Africa and the Middle East are creating new uncertainties for the United States and Israel. The revolutions that are underway may not produce the much-hoped for democratic ``Arab Spring''. Indeed, the ascension of Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamad Morsi to the Egyptian presidency is a development whose consequences cannot be predicted with certainty at the moment. During such times of uncertainty, it is important that America send a clear message to the region that we will continue to stand by our ally, Israel. This bill helps us do exactly that, which is why I am pleased to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend, the ranking member. Madam Chair, today we're considering the so-called National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012. Now, despite the bill's title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic and critical minerals production. In fact, under the guise of promoting the development of minerals critical to the United States' national security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public lands for almost all minerals. You heard Mr. Markey talk about gravel and sand and other things that can fall under the definition here of critical minerals. There's a list of problems with this bill that is long, and several of the amendments we'll consider today will attempt to address the egregious provisions that would truncate important environmental review. Make no mistake, this is a giveaway. It is free mining, no royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption from legal enforcement of the protections. And it's unnecessary. Madam Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has already reported out legislation, on a bipartisan basis, to lay the groundwork for developing critical and strategic mineral production. Nearly a year ago, July of 2011--yes, 12 months ago--the committee reported out H.R. 2011, on a bipartisan basis, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011, by unanimous consent. That bill would improve our understanding of critical strategic mineral deposits and aid in their development. That legislation is not only bipartisan, it's supported by the National Mining Association, for heaven's sake. The president and CEO of the National Mining Association, Hal Quinn, issued a statement when the bill was passed out of committee, saying, ``The House Natural Resources Committee took important bipartisan action today to ensure U.S. manufacturers, technology innovators, and our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the products they produce and use.'' He went on to say that legislation ``will provide a valuable assessment of our current and future mineral demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through domestic minerals production.'' Yes, a year ago we reported out a bill, on a bipartisan basis, that would do what this legislation purports to do. Instead, we're taking up this legislation, which is a giveaway. The legislation we could be dealing with actually deals with strategic and critical minerals. If the majority were to bring it to the floor, I'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming, bipartisan way and would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law. We should be able to work in this fashion when it comes to improving our supply of rare earths and other strategic minerals and ensuring that we're not dependent on China and other nations for their supply, but the majority is not interested, evidently, in working in a bipartisan fashion. Instead, they're moving this bill, H.R. 4402, which has almost nothing to do with strategic minerals and is really about giveaways to the mining industry. This bill is a Trojan horse and has no chance of becoming law. Why are we playing these games? Why are, I should say, they playing these games with our need to develop strategic minerals? We should be working in the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill. The majority should shelve this giveaway to the mining industry and bring up the other Critical Minerals Policy Act to the floor immediately.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to address the point raised by the committee chair. Where in the bill, he asks, are there exemptions from environmental review? Well, section 102 is where they are, right at the front of this bill, page 4, if he wanted to know the page number. Under section 102, the lead agency can determine whether the NEPA law, the National Environmental Policy Act, even applies to a particular project. The whole idea of the National Environmental Policy Act is that there would be an independent review that involves public input, input from all affected interests, and input from somebody who speaks for the land and somebody who speaks for the trees. One of my colleagues a few moments ago said mining affects only a tiny, tiny fraction of the land. Well, that is, if you ignore everybody who's downstream and downwind. Section 102 allows deferring and relying on data from reviews that have been performed not under NEPA standards. The majority says, well, State reviews should suffice. Well, does anybody remember a State called Montana that was controlled by copper interests? Do you think that State's reviews of a copper mining environmental impact would suffice? Well, that's the kind of thing that would be permitted under this legislation. It would be whether to prepare a document, the determination of the scope of any review, the submission and review of any comments from the public. They could say no public comments are permitted. I consider that a real abrogation of our responsibility and, yes, a real removal of environmental protection.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to clarify further the point raised by the chairman that this does not eviscerate environmental protections. I talked about section 102, and the chairman came back and said, well, section 101 just refers to the Presidential order that allows certain infrastructure projects to move ahead with expedited environmental review. First of all, it is only expedited environmental review--it is not with removal of environmental review--and that was talking about specific critical construction projects. What this would do would allow the exemption, essentially, from environmental review for any of the materials that go into the construction project, including gravel and sand. All of that would be exempt because the mining companies could negotiate a timetable for each step of the review process. The mining companies could enter into a negotiation for determining whether there would be public comment or whether partial previous reviews would suffice. Furthermore, section 103 directs the agency overseeing this project to prioritize, to give the highest priority, to maximizing the production of the mineral resource. In other words, that relegates any review, any challenge to the regulatory process, to secondary, tertiary or nonexistent status. It says maximizing production has the highest priority. This is a giveaway to mining companies. This is not about providing strategic and critical minerals. The other side has talked at length about the importance of these minerals to our modern technology today for batteries and cars and magnets and all sorts of other things. They're right, we should be ensuring a good supply of these things; but this bill does not do it.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have used the phrase ``giveaway,'' as have others today several times. The ranking member spoke about the wheel of giveaways. One day, it's oil. Another day, it's timber. Today, it's mining. There is also a lot of concern about the special interests that are represented here by this. I offered an amendment to this bill to ensure that the companies involved, the mining companies, could not continue to extract valuable minerals for free, minerals that belong to the American people, without accountability for their expenditures to obtain political influence. My amendment, which unfortunately was not allowed by the Rules Committee, would have simply required that mineral exploration and mining companies disclose their contributions for political influence over the previous 5 years in order to obtain new leases--perfectly legal and, I would say, perfectly reasonable. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United ruled that corporations may spend freely in elections, which I believe constituted a blow to popular democracy. It overturned a century-old doctrine going back to Teddy Roosevelt restricting corporate money in campaigns. The flawed decision opened floodgates on corporate spending to influence, maybe even to dominate, our elections. Because of that decision, American democracy has come to be defined by super PACs and similar organizations. The amendment I offered would have helped to restore some sanity and transparency to this process by requiring that mining companies disclose their campaign contributions over the previous 5 years in order to receive new leases for public lands. As Speaker Boehner said on ``Meet the Press'' a few years back: I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I agree. We should be doing that in this case as well. Promoting the development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities and that are genuinely susceptible to supply disruption, like rare Earth elements, should be an area where Democrats and Republicans can work together, not one where special interests advance one partisan interest over another. Unfortunately, the majority's hurry to give yet another handout to the mining industry means that we are not having that debate here today.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. HOLT. Almost 15 years ago, the Forest Service began the process of reviewing the management of the last remaining, undeveloped forests, the so-called roadless areas. In 2001, the Bush administration, yes, the George W. Bush administration, issued regulations to protect these areas in an effort recognized as one of the most far-reaching conservation initiatives taken by the Federal Government in decades. Now, a decade later, after litigation, 60 million acres of our forests, and the clean water derived from those forests, are now protected from harmful development. Three hundred fifty four municipal water supplies flow through roadless areas on their way to homes and businesses. These areas include sacred sites for Native Americans. They include biological strongholds for fish and wildlife. The continued protection of these areas is something that people all over America care about. I know the gentleman thinks that this is somehow infringing on Alaska. The point that must be made is this is in the national interest, and continued protection of these areas is common sense. It is what I know my constituents tell me they want. For the record, there are already 380,000 miles of roads in the rest of our national forests, with only 20 percent maintained to adequate standards of safety. The gentleman from Alaska offers an amendment that purports to waive the roadless rule for the purposes of mineral development. However, both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management say that the current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing development sites in our forests. All the current policy requires is careful consideration before access for mining operations is permitted. I recognize that southeast Alaska, we all recognize that southeast Alaska is a unique place that requires access by boat and helicopter. However, mine operators have been able to get the approval necessary for that access. This is a waiver that is overly broad, which Federal agencies tell us is unnecessary for the purposes purported here. And it just invites conflict where, for a decade now, there has been resolution. Congress has debated the roadless policy for a decade--actually for many decades, but for a decade--and opponents of the policy have had their day in court. Congress, the public, and the courts agree that they have supported the protections, including protections for those holding valid existing mineral rights. This amendment is not necessary, and I urge its defeat. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. The gentleman is right, this affects more than Alaska. This affects the country at large. The roadless rule has been debated. It has been litigated. It should be considered settled. The Young amendment, as the gentleman has explained, derives from his interest in having road access for mineral development in Alaska. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--I repeat--say that the current policy does not prevent the mineral developers from accessing development sites. We don't need to overturn a well-debated, well-litigated, settled matter of the roadless rule. Just to be clear, the amendment that the gentleman from Alaska offers would exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in land use designations, et cetera, from the procedures detailed and the rules promulgated under title 36, Code of Federal Regulations. This is sweeping and it is not necessary. Again, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, of course we want this country to have the minerals that it's dependent on; but need I repeat again that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management say that current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing the development sites. This amendment is not necessary, and it would overturn very important resolutions that protect the public lands in the public interest. I yield back the balance of my time.