Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. As for the funding, there is an offset from a little-used fund, a trust fund for building revitalization that is unlikely to be spent in the coming year.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. At a time when our economy is already fragile, the Majority appears intent on reducing Federal funding for the very programs that drive technological innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation system that keeps us competitive, enhances our quality of life, fuels our economy, and improves our national security. Investments in our Federal science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are not big government spending programs that we cannot afford. They are minimum down-payments on our country's national security, public health, and economic vitality that we cannot afford to postpone. Yet, this bill contains enormous cuts to several programs at the Department of Energy that are critical for supporting innovation and increasing American economic competitiveness. This bill slashes nearly $43 million in funding from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science compared to Fiscal Year 2011. The Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the physical sciences and has been integral to the development of dozens of innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modem scientific disciplines; some have revolutionized medicine; some have advanced our national energy security; some have made our troops safer. That is the nature and the power of scientific research--the ultimate outcomes cannot necessarily be known in advance, but investments in basic discovery can yield enormous dividends. I offered an amendment to restore funding to the DOE Office of Science so that it could maintain current operations. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated. This bill provided $100 million for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). ARPA-E supports high-risk, high-reward research on energy technologies. Funding for ARPA-E directly contributes to the creation of new technologies, new industries, and new jobs. Yet, the Majority intended to slash funding for this valuable program by an astonishing 81 percent relative to the President's request. Fortunately, the House passed an amendment offered by my colleague Mr. Schiff that will restore funding for ARPA-E to Fiscal Year 2011 levels. I was pleased to join my colleagues in voting for this important amendment. This legislation contains $1.3 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, a remarkable 59 percent less than President Obama's request. This is the worst possible moment to slash funding for sustainable energy technologies. The DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy supports research and development of sustainable energy technologies that strengthen the economy and protect the environment. Research in sustainable and efficient energy technologies increases our energy security, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, creates jobs, and increases our economic competitiveness. Yet the Majority made devastating cuts to this valuable program. Remarkably, the Majority was not satisfied with these cuts to energy efficiency programs. The House adopted by voice vote an amendment that would bar the Department of Energy from using funds to enforce energy efficiency standards for light bulbs enacted by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Yet, just days before, the House rejected an identical measure. This efficiency standard, enacted in a bipartisan bill signed into law by President Bush, simply requires that new light bulbs use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent light bulbs. No light bulbs are banned. No consumers will be forced to use one type of light bulb over another type. Since Congress acted 4 years ago, lighting companies have invested significant capital and resources into research, development, and new technologies--exactly the kind of investments that our economy desperately needs. So again, the Majority has voted to thwart technological progress and cost America jobs and money. While I do not object to the committee's decision to add disaster relief funding for projects resulting from tornadoes, storms, and floods across the Midwest and Southeast, I oppose strongly the decision to rescind $1 billion in unobligated funding for high-speed rail projects. In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Amtrak $450 million in funding to upgrade its rail infrastructure to support more frequent and faster high-speed rail service, and to improve reliability of current service between New York and Washington. Now this funding will be unavailable. This will result in a loss of jobs and infrastructure in my Central New Jersey district--one of the busiest segments of the Northeast Corridor and where the densest concentration of Acela Express high-speed rail operations occurs. This provision amounts to a step backward in the development of the nation's intercity rail infrastructure. In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Amtrak $450 million in funding to upgrade its rail infrastructure to support more frequent and faster high-speed rail service, and to improve reliability of current service between New York and Washington. Specifically, this award would upgrade electrical power, signal systems, track and overhead catenary wires in my Central New Jersey district--one of the busiest segments of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and where the densest concentration of Acela Express high-speed rail operations occurs. This work is critical to Amtrak's plan to double high-speed Acela service between New York and Washington by 2022. Budgets reflect, in dollars and cents, our priorities as a nation. We must provide Federal support for programs that encourage scientific research and support economic development. At a time when our economy is already fragile, abandoning scientific research would cause the U.S. to lose even more high-tech jobs to our foreign competitors. That is not the way to compete in the future, especially when the economy is in a fragile recovery. For all of these reasons, I am voting against this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington, and I rise in support of this resolution. When I first visited Burma decades ago, I learned what a difference a misguided regime can make. Burma had been a vibrant country known as the Rice Bowl of Asia. Burma had a rich history, fertile land, abundant resources, and a productive population. In the years following the coup in the early 1960s, the authoritarian regime impoverished the nation and brutalized its people, a pattern that persists today. For more than 20 years, the United States Government has sought to use its influence to try to create conditions for a restoration of democracy and the rule of law in Burma. One tool has been the use of sanctions. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was signed into law 8 years ago this month, and it requires the President to impose a ban on the import of products from Burma. It blocks U.S. support for loans from international financial institutions and freezes the assets of and bans visas for key members of the military junta that has imposed its will on the Burmese people for decades. I believe these sanctions should be renewed because there is evidence they are working. Last November, Burmese elections were clearly illegitimate and not a free expression of the will of the Burmese people. But the continuing international pressure on and scrutiny of the junta may be having some tangible effects. As the international crisis group noted earlier this year, two senior junta leaders have resigned since the elections, and there is some evidence that pressure has eased on some of the minority ethnic groups in the country. Burma's greatest human rights figure, Aung San Suu Kyi, told the Australian Broadcasting Network yesterday that continued use of targeted sanctions is important. ``I think it's much better to have very, very clear targets,'' she said, and continued, ``I do not think it's really very reasonable just to say, `We want an improvement in human rights, in your human rights record.' It's too vague. The release of political prisoners, the inclusion of all in the political process, the rule of law and so on--pick out the important points and say, `Well, if you want sanctions removed, you've got to do these.''' Mr. Speaker, we need to continue standing with Aung San Suu Kyi and all of the freedom-seeking Burmese. This resolution gives us a chance to do that, which is why I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a slogan for a title and unrealistic nonsense inside. Under this, millions of students would not get Pell Grants, and education and related programs would be cut by about 25 percent. And further, for the third time, yes, the third time, the majority is voting today to end Medicare and double health care costs for seniors. We shouldn't be surprised that the majority is squeezing out Medicare. They never liked it in the first place. We shouldn't be surprised that they are reducing education grants. They promised they would. We shouldn't be surprised that they want to preserve subsidies and giveaways to Big Oil and other fat cats because that's been their raison d'etre for a century. We should be surprised, or at least disappointed, that they want to sacrifice America's credit rating and good name. We should be disappointed too that they won't allow Congress to get on with the work, the hard work, the important work of actually making jobs.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Irwin Nalitt, who at 93 has decided to retire from his position as Councilman of Monroe Township in New Jersey. Councilman Nalitt moved to Monroe in 1982, when it was still largely a farming community. Since he first was elected in 1988, Councilman Nalitt has been instrumental in leading the Township's growing and increasingly active population. Most people are ready to settle down when they reach the age of 69, but Councilman Nalitt was just starting his busy career as a public servant. Councilman Nalitt has held positions as a member of the Monroe Township School Board and Planning Board and served as the President of the Concordia Civic Association for several years. Even today, Councilman Nalitt remains active on the Monroe Township Master Plan Committee and Library Board of Trustees, and he is the Council Advisor to the Commission on Aging. One of Councilman Nalitt's most noteworthy accomplishments was the opening of the Monroe Township Library in 1989. He and his late wife Helen were very active in the library's construction and maintenance, and they volunteered many hours to make the library a useful and inviting part of their town. I have had the pleasure of working with Councilman Nalitt on many matters and know him to be one of the finest public servants in the state. One project was to implement his vision of a free shuttle service that would take passengers around Monroe and to surrounding towns. I was pleased to secure federal funding for this project and to work with Councilman Nalitt to ensure that this service not only would be affordable and convenient for residents, but also would ease traffic and boost the local economy. While the Township of Monroe has rapidly transformed, Councilman Nalitt has remained a constant source of wisdom, generosity and humor. His sense of duty and purpose is a comfort to the residents of Monroe Township, and his bright humor is always well-received at Council meetings. Though he will be stepping down as Councilman, he plans to stay on the Library Board and the Commission on Aging. Councilman Nalitt has been a cornerstone of the Council for more than 20 years, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his many contributions and commend his active citizenship as a model for all community residents.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011'', H.R. 2018. This misguided bill would undermine the Clean Water Act and significantly limit the federal government's ability to ensure that our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams are pollution-free. This legislation is an unprecedented attack on the Clean Water Act. Because H.R. 2018 would make the water we drink less clean, I think it is fair to call this legislation what it is: The Dirty Water Act. Sadly, the Dirty Water Act is the latest in a long line of bills from the majority that puts big polluters before the health and safety of the American people. From the Dirty Air Act that would remove EPA's statutory authority to regulate carbon pollution to legislation that removes accountability for offshore drilling operations, the majority seems intent on rolling back programs that preserve our environment, protect our public health, and grow our economy. Since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, water quality safeguards have been collaborative effort between States and the Federal government. The Federal government reviews State water pollution control decisions to assure that they reflect up-to-date science and protect water in downstream locations in other States. The Clean Water Act was written wisely to allow pollution safeguards to grow with the scientific understanding of the dangers posed by various chemicals and with the technical means of controlling these chemicals. The Clean Water Act protects our rivers, lakes, and streams. The success of the Clean Water Act is because its regulations are based in science. Legislators shouldn't pretend to be scientists. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. HOLT

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

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this bill H.R. 2354 reduces the Department of Energy's Office of Science from about $43 million below this year's level. My amendment would restore that funding so that the Office of Science can sustain its current operations. I know the subcommittee chair, my friend from New Jersey, and the ranking Democrat, my friend from Indiana, understand very well the importance of this office of the Department of Energy, and I know they've worked hard to fit their bill into the budget constraints; but I must ask them to join me in taking another look at this office. Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation system that keeps us competitive, that enhances our quality of life, that fuels our economy, and that improves our national security. The Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the physical sciences. Its funding helps maintain America's first-rate workforce of research scientists and engineers, who are working daily to address some of the greatest challenges and to push the boundaries of existing knowledge. Thousands of graduate students and early career scientists at hundreds of U.S. institutions, the next generation of America's scientific talent, depend on the support of the Office of Science for their research and training. In addition, the office maintains excellent, unique user facilities that are relied on by more than 25,000 scientists from industry, academia and national laboratories to advance important research that creates jobs today and that could lead to entire industries tomorrow. The success of the Office of Science clearly shows the quality and the importance of the work supported there: MRI machines, PET scanners, new composite materials for military hardware and civilian motor vehicles, the use of medical and industrial isotopes, biofuel technologies, DNA sequencing technologies, battery technology for electric vehicles, artificial retinas, safer nuclear reactor designs, three-dimensional models of pathogens for vaccine development, tools to manufacture nano materials, better sensors--on and on. The Office of Science has been the source of hundreds and hundreds of innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modern scientific disciplines and have revolutionized medicine and energy and military technology. The America COMPETES Act--passed in a very bipartisan vote here in Congress in 2007 and signed into law by President George Bush-- recognized that we have underfunded our basic research agencies for far too long, and it laid out a vision for doubling the funding at our research agencies, including the Office of Science. This law was reauthorized last year. The bill we are considering today woefully underfunds the office by this national goal. Matching last year's funding level with an additional $42.7 million, as my amendment would do, is the least we can do. Many dozens of organizations, universities, and companies have joined to advocate strongly for maintaining the current level of work for the Office of Science. My amendment is fully offset by transferring funding from the nuclear weapons account, which receives an additional $195 million in the underlying bill before us today. So let's get our priorities straight. Investments in our Federal science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are not Big Government spending programs that we cannot afford; they are the minimum downpayments for our Nation's national security, public health, and economic vitality. All this talk down the street now about how we're going to grow, this is it. We cannot afford to postpone this research. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to maintain the 10 percent statutory NFIP premium increases. While it is important to keep NFIP authorized and to begin solving its funding problems, we must make sure we are improving participation in the program and keeping premiums affordable. Low participation in NFIP in high-risk areas has been one of the program's most persistent challenges. That is why I joined my colleagues in sponsoring this amendment. Doubling the maximum premium rate increase from 10 to 20 percent would hurt existing policyholders nationwide and in my Central New Jersey district. If homeowners get hit with annual premium increases in excess of 10 percent, I am concerned that that they will decide flood insurance is something they can do without. And when a catastrophic event occurs, taxpayers will pick up the tab with disaster aid. I have heard from homeowners, flood plain managers, insurers, and realtors in my congressional district about the importance of passing an extension of NFIP. Although I am pleased that we are considering the underlying bill, we should be encouraging more homeowners to obtain flood insurance, not placing an extra burden on policyholders who are doing the right thing protecting their homes from flood. I ask my colleagues to join me supporting this amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. I thank the majority for allowing the House to work its will in a completely open fashion on this bill. It was a refreshing change. I only wish the outcome had been a bill that reflected better the international security and economic realities we are facing today. To be sure, there are many things in this bill that I strongly support. The 1.6 percent pay increase for our troops is important and necessary. The additional $1.5 billion for Guard and Reserve equipment modernization is badly needed. The $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy programs will help military families cope while their loved ones are away and help our troops reintegrate when they come home. And the bill also includes a critical suicide prevention amendment I offered. My amendment would give the Defense Department $20 million to initiate suicide prevention and counseling calls to help prevent these reservists from taking their own lives, as Coleman Bean, my constituent, tragically did in September 2008. For reservists like Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey--those in the IRR, Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and Inactive National Guard members--there remains no dedicated suicide prevention programs to help them cope with the war-time experiences. These reservists need our help, and I'm pleased my amendment was accepted. Unfortunately, the good provisions in this bill are vastly outweighed by the absolute failure of the majority to make the Pentagon subject to the same kind of budget reductions they are so eagerly imposing on every other federal agency. Since the year began, we've heard constantly from the majority that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If they really believed that, they would have supported the $70 billion in cuts to the budget that I voted for during the debate on this bill. Instead, the only true cut they supported to this bloated, $650 billion defense budget is a $125 million reduction in funding for military bands. The majority's message is clear: we will continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, school children, and seniors. The Pentagon budget--which now funds a weakly justified war in Libya, a continued occupation of Iraq, and a military quagmire in Afghanistan--remains as the great sacred cow in the federal budget. There is no greater example today of our upside- down priorities than this budget. This bill will provide nearly $13 billion for an Afghan security force that is riddled with corruption, Taliban sympathizers, and drug traffickers. The bill continues to fund our presence in Iraq--tens of thousands of American troops remain in that country, and as we've seen they remain targets, with still more killed and wounded this year. So much of this bill continues to be devoted to spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons systems that were designed to meet a Soviet threat that vanished 20 years ago. This week, a colleague from Vermont, Mr. Welch, offered an amendment to this bill that would have eliminated funding for a next-generation nuclear bomber, a bomber to replace the B-2. Why in the world do we need such a platform in the first place? It was not a B-2 bomber that killed Osama bin Laden, but a U.S. Special Operations Forces team working with our intelligence community that eliminated the al Qaeda leader. Buying new nuclear bombers would simply be a form of defense-sector corporate welfare to protect against a threat that does not exist. Yet Mr. Welch's amendment was defeated, and so we will continue to fund the development of an airplane we don't need. I offered an amendment with several of my colleagues that would have simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of allowing a $17 billion increase over last year's Pentagon budget, it would cap the increase at $8.5 billion without impacting military pay or benefits. That amendment was also defeated--and its defeat only proved what I suspected: the majority is not serious about reigning in government spending. Most of the attention this week was directed toward spending more for the military than we even have, spending more that the rest of the world--all together--and more than we can afford, even as so many people are calling for austerity measures to cut college aid, bridges and trains, environmental protection, and even Medicare. Yet the majority did not hesitate to deny training to military chaplains for implementing the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', or to prevent the Defense Department from buying more fuel efficient vehicles, or to prevent taxpayers from finding out about political contributions by defense contractors. For all of these reasons, I am voting against this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition. Many have claimed that Washington will ban the sale of conventional incandescent light bulbs. My colleague from Texas just said he regrets that he would lose this soft glow of the incandescent light. In fact, he can use an incandescent light. It looks like this. It looks familiar. It's what in comic strips you put above somebody's head to say, ``I've got a good idea.'' Not that I'm going to keep doing things the old way and stick in a rut, no. I've got a good, new idea. That's what happened a few years ago when it became apparent that technology had come so far that we didn't have to throw away 90 percent of the energy of an incandescent light bulb. Scientists had shown us how you can make light bulbs that would produce, as these do, 100 watts worth of light for 72 watts of electricity charge, and you could do it for $1.49 for each of them here. Well, in a bipartisan effort, this legislation that has driven the country forward in lighting was passed, and now the majority on a partisan tear is coming and trying to repeal it just when it shows that it is working. About 15 percent of residential electricity goes into lighting. Wouldn't you, wouldn't anyone, like to save 30 percent of that, which is just being thrown away? Now, my colleagues say Congress shouldn't be doing this. Why are they not also issuing calls for turn-of-the-century Model Ts or iceboxes? They have sort of a yearning for the good old days, technologies that are roughly as old as the incandescent light bulb. We're proud in New Jersey of Thomas Edison. But we've improved the talking machines. We've done a little bit better with the moving pictures. Now, Model Ts and iceboxes are technologies that actually happen to have been improved through Federal standards. The companies are moving rapidly to make more efficient lighting that will give you all the advantages you want that you're used to of the incandescent bulb and save you bundles. Yes, this costs a few dimes more, but let me tell you, you start saving dimes the moment you screw these into the socket. This is a bad idea to repeal it.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. I would like to make a brief comment in support of the gentleman's amendment. As he said and as I would like to reiterate, there is a class of space exploration that cannot be carried out without these RTGs. Our domestic supply is unreliable at best, essentially nonexistent, and it takes a while to regenerate that. I strongly support the gentleman's move to restart that program so that we could have a reliable domestic program for deep space exploration that cannot be conducted in any way with other energy sources. I think it is a reasonable amendment and is not overstated, and I would urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts. You know, all of Washington inside the Beltway is abuzz about how much we can save by cutting Federal spending. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, to us, this amendment is a test. Will we put every Federal agency's budget on the table in our quest to control spending and reduce debt, or are there privileged categories? Will we continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, schoolchildren, and seniors? The Pentagon spending bill before us, some $650 billion, nearly two- thirds of a trillion dollars, is about equal to all military spending of all the rest of the world--all of our allies, all of our potential adversaries, and all of those countries that Americans rarely think about all put together. The amendment that Mr. Frank and I and some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are offering today is truly a modest proposal. It would simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of allowing a $17 billion increase over this year's level, it would cut that increase in half just to see if we are willing to do that. Now, my colleague, Mr. Cole, puts this, I think, in the wrong context. I mean, we should talk about, sure, in 1960 it was a larger part of the budget. That is before we had Medicare, before we had a lot of programs. But when you ask yourself is our military structured to deal with the problems this country faces and to expect from other countries in the world their share of what must be done, the answer surely is this is an unsustainable size. This amendment was born out of a series of discussions among Mr. Frank and Mr. Paul and Mr. Jones and some other Members and I have had over several months. Recently, we sent a joint letter that outlined our concerns about the state of our spending on national security. We point out not only the excessive, unquestioned overall size of military spending, but also that this is a result of the military that is indeed a remnant of the Cold War, to go back to Mr. Cole's comments. And it bears far more than our share of keeping the peace and is still structured to overwhelm the Soviet Union more than to deal with today's actual threats to our security. To take one example that the cosponsors of this amendment may or may not agree with me on but we might ask: Why do we need a replacement for the B-2 bomber? It was not the B-2 bomber or any bomber that killed Osama bin Laden. It was U.S. Special Operations. Buying new nuclear bombers would simply be a form, I think, of defense sector corporate welfare to protect against a threat that went away decades ago. I could cite multiple additional disconnects between our defense spending priorities and the actual threats we face. One that comes to mind is Libya. As we note in our letter, it has been widely reported in the press that England and France have been pressing the United States to resume its earlier role in Libya because they've been unable to assume it themselves. The explanation is that only America has the capacity to respond. Our point precisely. We have allowed other nations in the world to grow into an overdependence on America's military and America's tax dollars and the expenditure of American money and lives far beyond what's appropriate for our share of world peacekeeping. All of us who support this amendment want to protect our country. That's precisely why we've offered our proposal and this amendment: To put ourselves on track for a better structured military. Spending money on cold war-era weapons to wage undeclared wars of choice is clear evidence of misguided, needlessly expensive priorities. If the House cannot even pass an amendment that simply cuts the rate of increase in Pentagon spending, it will never pass amendments that actually make the kinds of cuts that are truly necessary to restructure our defense in order to meet the real threats we face and to achieve the budget savings that we must secure for our financial future. I urge my colleagues to support this modest first step to rein in our out-of-control defense budget. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It reduces the Afghan Security Forces account by about 1 part in 500, one five-hundredth, in order to increase the Defense Health Program account by $20 million to save soldiers' lives. It will give the Pentagon a much-needed infusion of funds to address a serious gap in our military's suicide prevention. I learned about this gap through the tragedy of a young constituent from New Jersey who fell through the cracks. He took his own life in September of 2008. But it is not just one soldier. We have a broad problem here. In each of the past 2 years, more American soldiers have died at their own hands than have been killed in war fighting. Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, attended East Brunswick public schools, he enlisted in the Army in 2001, and he attended Airborne school at Fort Benning. His first assignment with the 173rd Airborne was in Italy. In 2003, he and the rest of the 173rd conducted a combat jump into Iraq. Like many of his buddies, he saw the horrors of war firsthand, and, like some, he sought treatment from the VA for his diagnosed post- traumatic stress disorder when he returned home in 2004. He was honorably discharged from active duty in 2005, and, like other Army members, Coleman Bean still had 4 years of reserve duty commitment through what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) program. He was recalled to duty in Iraq in 2007 through the IRR and was assigned to serve in northern Iraq. When he returned to New Jersey the following year, he was still suffering from the symptoms of PTSD but managed to conceal his condition from even those closest to him. No one reached out to him. Tragically, he took his own life in September 2008. Ironically, tragically, a few weeks after Coleman took his life, the VA called to say that his appointment was ready. Two Federal agencies charged with helping prevent suicides among our returning soldiers utterly failed this soldier and his family. Indeed, earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court, siding with two veterans groups that sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to provide timely care for veterans at risk of suicide, noted that an average of 18 veterans per day take their own lives. We must stop this epidemic. This amendment will help. We can't allow another family to lose a son or a daughter, a father or a mother, a husband or a wife because of buck-passing. When I investigated Coleman Bean's tragedy, the VA confirmed that they don't offer dedicated suicide prevention programs for members of the IRR. They consider that a DOD responsibility. The DOD officials at TRICARE said that treating IRR members is the VA's problem. Simply stated, if you are a member of the Individual Ready Reserve suffering from PTSD, you're on your own. The same problem applies to other categories of reservists, such as the Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), and the members of the Inactive National Guard (ING). According to the Defense Department, there are at least 123,000 IRR, IMA, and ING members who have done at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. My amendment would give the Secretary of Defense the funding needed to expand the suicide prevention outreach program to ensure that members of these reserve units who have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan will receive a call from a properly trained counselor not less than once every 90 days so long as the servicemember remains in the IRR, the IMA or the ING. In these calls, the trained counselor would be required to determine the emotional, psychological, mental, medical and career needs and concerns of the reservist. Covered reservists identified as being at risk would be immediately referred to the nearest military treatment facility. I have discussed this program with the Pentagon. The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. Stanley, assures me that the Department has more than adequate legal authority to carry this out. What he needs is funding, and my amendment would provide that funding. When we get the word out about these counseling services, we save lives. This amendment is budget neutral, it is vitally needed, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, over 19,000 people in New Jersey depend on the goods and services provided by the commissary at Fort Monmouth. The looming closure of Fort Monmouth has cast a cloud over the future of this facility, causing considerable consternation among the active duty, Guard and Reserve, and military retirees who count on the commissary to help them save money and live their quality lives that we have promised them. In February 2011, the Secretary of the Army recognized the importance of this facility and recommended to the Pentagon leadership that the facility remain open. Department regulations give the Pentagon the ability to decide whether to keep the commissary open after a base closes. I should point out that the active personnel at Naval Weapons Station Earle, which does not have a commissary, depend on this commissary as well. We in New Jersey, in the New Jersey delegation, strongly agree with Secretary McHugh's recommendation, which is currently under consideration in the Pentagon. The amendment I am offering, but will withdraw pursuant to a discussion, a colloquy with my colleagues, would bar the use of fiscal 12 funds to close the commissary. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.

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

Mr. HOLT. I thank both gentlemen. This means a great deal to the people of New Jersey, to whom we owe a great deal for their military work. Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC, February 25, 2011. Hon. Rush Holt, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Holt: Thank you for your August 17, 2010 letter concerning the closure of the commissary and post exchange on Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. As we have discussed, the post exchange stores at Fort Monmouth must close in preparation for the closure of Fort Monmouth. However, I have directed the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment to send an official request to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [USD(P&R)] to keep the Fort Monmouth commissary open for a transitional 2-year period following installation closure. If USD(P&R) approves this request, the continued operation of the commissary for this 2-year period will be conditional on a volume of sales that supports operational costs. Defense Commissary Agency's (DeCA) projections indicate annual sales of $9.2M in the year following closure. DeCA will continue to review sales and cost data and will advise the Army if sales decline significantly. Thank you for your inquiry into this matter and for your continued support of our Soldiers and their Families. Sincerely, John M. McHugh. With that understanding, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I voted against H.R. 2021, the so-called Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. H.R. 2021 is the latest piece of legislation from the Majority that puts Big Oil before public welfare. H.R. 2021 is yet another attack on the Clean Air Act. This harmful legislation would revoke Clean Air Act protections mandating that oil companies use pollution control technology for vessels used in offshore drilling. H.R. 2021 would allow oil companies to measure pollutants and toxics generated from offshore drilling rigs at onshore locations, effectively allowing for offshore sources to generate larger and larger amounts of toxic air pollution. While these permitting loopholes present clear dangers to public health and welfare, perhaps the most egregious affront to the Clean Air Act is the provision in H.R. 2021 that eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board at EPA. This board provides those citizens directly affected by coastal air pollution access to an impartial review of permitting decisions. To be clear, this misguided legislation puts oil companies before the health of the American public. For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing emissions into the atmosphere of pollutants and chemicals that kill people and endanger public health. Its success is due, in large part, to being enacted and strengthened based on the best science to find the most effective ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air. The Clean Air Act should not be undercut to benefit large oil companies. If enacted into law, this bill would have far reaching consequences and damage public health in the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts. The world's most profitable oil companies should be held to the highest public health and environmental safety standards, not given a free pass to generate toxic air pollution. I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful and reckless legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I wish our action today were unnecessary. As I noted earlier this year when the President initiated military action in Libya, he would have been better served by putting this matter before this body in advance of taking action, not afterwards. And as I predicted then, the President has been subjected to almost daily second guessing, criticism, and frequently partisan attacks over this operation. All of this was avoidable. None of us wish to abandon freedom-seeking Libyans or our NATO allies, and a vote for this resolution does not mean we are doing either. Our logistical and intelligence support to NATO will continue uninterrupted. Our capacity to conduct cover action to assist the Libyan rebels will remain unimpeded. And the ability of the international community to continue to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Libya will be unaffected. I am voting for the Rooney bill for what it says, not for what some in the majority say it says. This should not be used as a club to attack President Obama. I will support this measure because it is absolutely imperative for the Congress, as an institution, to remind the President that the power to authorize military actions and war resides in this body. We strengthen our democracy by passing this resolution, we strengthen this institution by passing this resolution, and we honor our NATO obligations, and we stand by Libyans seeking self-determination, and that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution.