Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2013 I missed a series of votes related to H.R. 1062, the so-called ``SEC Regulatory Accountability Act'', due to a prior commitment to escort my mother as she received an honorary doctorate from the West Virginia University. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Hurt amendment, ``yes'' on the Maloney amendment, ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1062, which should be called the ``Wall Street Protection Act.'' The intent of this legislation is to cripple the ability of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to do its job--to create rules which protect investors. The SEC is already federally mandated to conduct analyses of their proposed regulations. The hurdles set by this legislation are unrealistic and duplicative. Even worse, this legislation would create an environment with less effective regulations, leaving average American investors on their own. The cost to individual families and to our economy from unregulated misbehavior and malfeasance in our financial industries is high. This Congress should not continue to waste time padding the pockets of Wall Street executives. Instead, this Congress needs to take action on today's real issues: creating jobs, encouraging Americans to make investments in their retirements, and protecting middle class families and consumers.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 45, the ``Patients' Rights Repeal Act.'' Today's vote will mark the 37th time that this House will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It was only ten months ago when I spoke in opposition to the same bill being considered today. I would like to remind my colleagues of what repealing health care reform would mean for the Central New Jerseyans whom I represent. Take, for example, Matt from West Windsor. Matt wrote me, ``I graduated from college this past May and am currently working at a job with new health insurance. I have a preexisting condition, and, shockingly, I truly would be without insurance and in big trouble if this legislation is reversed.'' Carolyn from East Brunswick contacted me to say she had been laid off and her COBRA benefits were about to expire. Because of the Affordable Care Act, she could enroll at age 25 as a dependent on her father's Federal employee benefits plan. Mary from Princeton wrote to me that her son ``has cystic fibrosis and he would be subject to both the lifetime cap on benefits and the denial because of preexisting conditions were it not for the provisions of the health reform.'' Matt, Carolyn, and Mary's examples are not just anecdotal: they are representative of the numerous affordable and comprehensive health coverage benefits that New Jerseyans have gained under health care reform--as well as what they stand to lose if the Affordable Care Act were repealed. For example, in addition to Matt, who was able to gain coverage as result of health care reform despite his pre-existing conditions, 1,343 previously uninsured residents of New Jersey who were locked out of the coverage system because of a pre-existing condition are now insured through a new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, which receives finding from the Affordable Care Act. Carolyn is one of more than 73,000 young adults in New Jersey who gained insurance coverage as a result of the health care law. Mary and her son, along with 3 million other people in New Jersey, including 1.2 million women and 877,000 children, are free from worrying about lifetime limits on coverage thanks to health care reform. Republicans here in the House may be able to point to a business owner who has concerns over a provision of the law, or an adult who resists purchasing health insurance, but the truth is, the law has something to offer for every American. The Affordable Care Act requires that insurance companies spend the majority of your premium on health care--not on CEO bonuses or administrative costs. The law requires that Medicare coverage includes preventive services--such as flu shots and mammograms--without any cost sharing for our seniors. Furthermore, the law prohibits insurance companies from dropping someone when they get sick, or charging women more than men for the same health coverage. If you repeal the law, you take away these important provisions that make our health care more accessible, affordable, comprehensive, and reliable. One does not bring a proposal to a vote 37 times out of a rational, considered desire to improve the lives of the American people. You do it out of an irrational, ideological vendetta. But the problem with irrational vendettas is that they are so focused on ideology that they ignore human consequences. Stop ignoring Matt. Don't punish Carolyn. Don't overlook Mary and her son. Let's stop this foolish vendetta and do the real work we were sent here to do.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1406, the so- called ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in order to allow private sector employers to compensate their employees with compensatory time or comp time, instead of earned overtime pay. This proposal subverts the power and purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act by making private sector workplaces less fair and certainly less flexible. Instead of ensuring fairness and flexibility for employees, H.R. 1406 gives employers the legal cover for forcing employees to work more and then, in turn, paying them less. This bill does nothing to assist working families; rather it is an assault on the wages of working families all across the country. What would improve the lives of working families is a proposal to increase the minimum wage, such as introduced by Ranking Member Miller and cosponsored by me and 134 members of this House. H.R. 1010 would increase the minimum wage in three tiered steps and then index future increases to inflation. Such a proposal would actually provide more flexibility by putting more money in the pockets of working families today and in the future. However, instead of considering a proposal which would directly benefit American workers, this Committee is considering a misleadingly named bill which does just the opposite. Flexibility in the workplace is something that the government welcomes. However, H.R. 1406 is not the way to achieve that goal. Flexible workplaces do not force employees to choose between working more and earning less. Instead, flexible workplaces provide adequate leave options under the Family Medical Leave Act. Flexible workplaces provide a competitive, living wage for employees regardless of their gender. Flexible workplaces provide sufficient paid sick leave. H.R. 1406 does nothing to advance any of these proposals and most of all does nothing to foster a flexible work environment. H.R. 1406 is nothing more than a message moment for the majority party. The bill weakens the worker protections under which we have lived comfortably for 75 years. This bill provides less flexibility, not more. Even if this deeply flawed bill passes this House, it will not be considered by the Senate nor will it become law. It is a diversion from the real issues that this Committee was tasked with tackling: creating jobs and fostering economic growth.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act'' would amend and would subvert the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in order to allow private sector employers to compensate their employees instead of paying them overtime. It gives employers the legal cover to force employees to work more and to pay them less. What would improve the lives of working families would be an increase in the minimum wage. What would provide flexible workplaces would be to give adequate leave options under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Flexible workplaces provide competitive living wages for employees. Flexible workplaces provide sufficient sick-pay leave. H.R. 1406 does nothing to advance any of these proposals.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to take note of a major milestone in human history. This past week, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 400 parts per million. I say a ``milestone in human history'' because this level of carbon dioxide has never been seen in human history. In fact, this level has not been achieved for millions of years. I also say a ``milestone in human history'' because it is human activity--the way we produce and use energy--that is responsible for this high concentration; and it is of historic importance because, as scientists have made clear, this great concentration of greenhouse gas is changing our very climate in ways that are dangerous and costly in dollars and lives. If we fail to change our ways, fail to change how we generate and use energy, then we will face worse and worse--blistering wildfires, withering droughts, flooding events, super hurricanes. As the Earth goes barreling past 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, let's take action now, this year, this Congress, to address climate change. Let's show that this is a turning point, not just a marker of inaction and environmental degradation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, which reiterates language that is in the underlying bill, and we have no objection to it on the minority side. I applaud the gentleman for bringing it forward.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee again for bringing forward this bipartisan legislation, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Federal Helium Reserve is in rapid decline. It is being exhausted. At the current drawdown rate, in 5 or 6 or 7 years the helium in the reserve will be largely depleted. The amendment by Mr. Dent seeks to run out the clock on this legislation to allow the existing regime to stand and prevent the reforms that H.R. 527 would bring forward. H.R. 527 does not alter or end the contracts that the refiners have with the Bureau of Land Management, but if we do nothing and allow the gentleman's amendment to go forward, under existing law and terms of those contracts, the entire helium program would come to an end in October of 2013--this year. The amendment would delay the implementation of the reforms in the bill until 2018 at which time it is likely there would be little helium left to distribute to anyone, to the hospitals and the doctors who need it, to the electronics manufacturers who need it, to the scientists and researchers who need it. This amendment would gut the bipartisan reforms of the bill, and it should be defeated. Although the gentleman claims he wants to prevent disruption in the supply, by preventing this legislation, he would in fact do just that. He would create disruptions in the supply.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is quite simple. It would expand the study section of the act to provide an assessment of how the eventual closure of the Federal Helium Reserve would influence the availability of this critical resource in the future. Let me take just a moment to say a little bit about why this is important. Helium is the second-lightest gas in existence. It remains liquid down to absolute zero. It is chemically very inert. It is hardly soluble in water or other fluids. It can be made into a quantum superfluid that flows without any viscous resistance at all. These are unique properties that make helium invaluable, necessary, irreplaceable for uses in magnetic resonance imaging in doctors' offices and hospitals, for fabricating electronic devices, for all sorts of research, whether it be in quantum computing or superfluids in any number of other areas. Why is this a policy issue worthy of the consideration of the U.S. Congress? Well, because this invaluable, irreplaceable element is very rare on Earth. It is in fact the second most common element in the universe, but it has long since risen up through the atmosphere of the Earth and vanished into space. And small amounts of helium are created moment by moment deep in the Earth through radioactive decay caught in natural gas reserves, along with methane and the other things that we call natural gas. But it is rare, and it is difficult to separate, and yet we need it. Farsighted legislators three-quarters of a century ago began stockpiling helium. They thought it would be used for dirigibles and blimps. They weren't sure what else it would be used for, but they understood helium had some very special properties. It was a good investment for taxpayers. It was a very good investment for taxpayers that this stockpile was created. Now the stockpile is running low because of decisions by Congress in past years. It's important that, as we make the decisions and the changes that we make with this legislation, we not fail to recognize possible future uses, possible future demands, and possible failure of the market to provide an adequate supply of helium to meet those demands. I know there is an ideology that's prevalent around here for any commodity, for any human need, that the market will provide. In fact, it doesn't always. And in this case, in the helium over the decades, it would not have, had it not been for the Federal Reserve. So it is important that we stop and take a look at the implications for the future. And so my amendment would simply expand the study section that already exists in this legislation to make sure that we look at possible future uses, likely future supplies, and making sure that we are prepared to have an adequate supply of this valuable resource into the future. It should be a noncontroversial amendment. I hope it will be unopposed, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Texas, and I think the gentleman's amendment is a good one. It will clarify that producers of helium may connect to the Federal helium reserve to store helium. And by seeking to provide incentives for additional production and storage, I think his amendment will provide a public service. I think, as the gentleman has said, we should examine ways that we can use the reserve to maximize the American supply of helium in the decades ahead. So I support him in this, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, a superb Member of Congress, Mr. McGovern. I join him in saying that this legislation represents an unwarranted delay on what should be a noncontroversial piece of legislation. H.R. 527 is a bill carefully written by Chairman Hastings, in consultation with me and with Ranking Member Markey, with Representative Flores, and with many individuals and organizations that depend on a reliable, fairly priced supply of helium. Now, most Americans give no thought to our supply of helium; but a reliable supply of helium is essential for health care imaging, for electronics manufacturing, and for many, many other activities important to Americans today and in the future. In line with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, which my friend from Utah mentioned, the bill succeeds in averting a global helium crisis that would result from the closure of the Federal Helium Reserve at the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fixes the mechanism for helium pricing so that we can now provide a fair market price to users and a positive return to taxpayers. So I support the bipartisan agreement represented here in H.R. 527. Yet by bringing this legislation to the floor under a rule, which is really not necessary, with amendments and by scheduling a debate today, which will end, maybe, an hour or two from now--and amendments tomorrow, which will take an hour or so, stretched over 2 days--the leadership has created a deliberate, irresponsible delay. We could have dispensed with this in 10 minutes. My colleague said 60 minutes--okay. Let's be generous--60 minutes--but we could have dispensed with this. Instead, we spend 2 days on this, and in the 2 days we spend on this, we are not considering legislation to create jobs, to provide education and training for workers, to consider a conference on the budget resolutions of the House and the Senate, or legislation to undo the sequester imposed by the Republican majority and now affecting airport delays and Head Start limitations and lost food inspections and delayed medical research and so many other things. The bill could have been considered and adopted under a suspension of the rules, but instead we are here debating a rule. It's an important issue. We've proposed a workable solution. There is no controversy that I know of on this, so let's pass H.R. 527 without delay and get on to all of these other issues. It's not as if there aren't important problems facing this country.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 527, and I begin by commending and thanking Chairman Hastings for his outstanding bipartisan leadership on this legislation and on other things before the committee. This bill was drafted in close cooperation with the Democratic minority, and I thank the chairman of the committee. He worked with Ranking Member Markey and me and with Representative Flores; and we've put together, I think, a solid piece of legislation. The legislation is an example of how we can work together. I wish it were moving faster on the floor today and tomorrow, but it is a cooperative undertaking. As the chairman said, helium is critical for magnetic resonance imaging, MRI machines; for NASA rocket operation; for high-tech manufacturing; and for all sorts of scientific research. For many of these applications, there is no replacement for helium with its truly unique properties. Farsighted legislators established a Federal stockpile many decades ago, which was good; and as important uses of helium were recognized over the decades, we can be thankful that the stockpile existed. The frenzy of privatization under the Gingrich era in Congress has now made this legislation necessary. Our Nation's Federal Helium Reserve supplies nearly half of the helium used in the United States; and if Congress fails to pass this legislation, by the end of the current fiscal year, the Interior Department's authority to continue operating the Reserve will expire. If this is allowed to happen, nearly half of America's helium supply would be cut off overnight, creating truly a crisis in health care, in research, in electronic manufacturing, and in many other areas. That's the immediate problem that this legislation would solve; but there is a second, potentially more severe, problem to be addressed. At the current withdrawal rates, we have only 5 to 7 years of helium available from the Reserve. Reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, by the Government Accountability Office, and by the Interior Department Inspector General's Office have all concluded that we are not selling the Nation's helium at market prices. Since Federal helium comprises such an enormous percentage of the global supply, with the price set and controlled by the Interior Department as required under the guidelines established some years back, the global price of helium is artificially low. The current system isn't just a bad deal for taxpayers; it has also distorted the global helium market. If we continue to avoid a solution, as some have advocated, we could find ourselves facing even more severe helium shortages and price spikes when the Federal Reserve is largely exhausted a few years from now and when there may be insufficient alternative supplies to turn to. That's why we must reform our Nation's helium policy, put the market- based signals in place that will help provide an incentive to bring new supplies on line. The failure to enact reforms of the helium program, such as those contained in this legislation, could mean an increased reliance on insecure and irregular helium supplies from Russia, Algeria, Qatar, and other foreign sources. It could mean higher prices for American industry and for researchers. There have already been interruptions in supply. National labs have testified before our committee that helium deliveries necessary for their research have already been subject to interruptions. The bipartisan legislation before us today would address both of these impending crises. H.R. 527 would extend the life of the Federal Helium Reserve past the end of this year and ensure a fair return to taxpayers on this federally-owned resource. It would generate more than $300 million for American taxpayers as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The bill will increase competition, transparency, and participation in helium markets, which will help shift commercial helium reliance from the Reserve to private sources. The principles of this bill are consistent with the recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 to improve the helium program by expanding participation and openness in helium markets. It will protect Federal users, such as NASA and the National Labs, as well as the scientific community by ensuring that they have priority access to this federally-owned resource in the short term and exclusive access in the longer term. This bill was created with input from the Department of the Interior, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and many scientific researchers. It has the support of the American Physical Society and many other groups and many helium users, such as corporations like General Electric, Siemens, Philips, Intel, Applied Materials, Dow Chemical, IBM, Texas Instruments, and many others. It's a product of close work between the majority and the minority members of the committee. Again, I thank the majority for providing that collaboration with us. It's a good bill. It provides a workable solution to a real problem. I urge its adoption. I wish we could deal with this bill promptly and all the amendments promptly. We could be done in less than an hour, and then we could turn our attention to other concerns that Americans have, such as jobs and education, training for workers, a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate budget resolutions, removing the thoughtless sequester that the majority imposed on the country affecting air traffic control and food inspections and Head Start slots and medical research and many other things. But instead, we will postpone the consideration of the amendments until tomorrow, I'm sorry to say, and eat up valuable time that we could spend dealing with America's pressing problems. Nevertheless, I look forward to the passage of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman needs more time, I gladly yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HOLT. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. HOLT. We have at least one more speaker, and my closing.

Mr. HOLT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) who counts among his constituents many who work in technical industries and laboratories who depend on helium and understand that although there are a lot of easy jokes about helium, this is a serious matter. It is a serious matter that we should move along with promptly.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Colorado, the chair of the Energy and Mineral Subcommittee. He reiterates the important uses of helium, and I would add that any American patient or doctor who uses MRIs, which depend on helium, or any American who uses modern electronics whose manufacture depends on helium, or anyone who depends on so many other things for which helium is essential, should be grateful that decades ago farsighted legislators created the stockpile to preserve helium. We now have before us the need to make sure that helium isn't sold at fire-sale prices. We need to make sure that we have a reliable supply for these important uses. We need to make sure that the Interior Department is not forced out of the business prematurely. The Interior Department has expressed support for the approach taken by this legislation. Again, I commend and thank the chairman for his bipartisan leadership to bring this sensible legislation to the floor. I hope that the other body will act quickly and follow our lead and pass this legislation so we do not experience supply disruptions and price spikes later this year. I urge passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armenian Caucus, I am pleased to continue to lend my support to the Armenian-American community and the people of Armenia in any way that I can. I support strongly the work that all the members of the Armenian American community do to foster strong ties between America and Armenia. This month we mark a somber and important anniversary. Ninety-eight years ago, the Ottoman empire committed one of the largest crimes against humanity in world history. The systematic annihilation of over a million Armenian men, women and children is a crime that cannot be forgotten. We will not allow it to be forgotten. I know that many will say that the Armenian deaths occurred in the midst of war and social disruption and so we cannot call it genocidal killing, or that we cannot even say accurately how many people died and how they died. Such arguments avoid the evidence. The evidence shows that more than a million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman empire. Further, some will complain that these statements unfairly besmirch the dignity and reputation of today's Turks. I would say that recognizing genocide from nearly a century ago need not sully the reputation of modern-day Turks any more than accounts of disreputable, brutal or atrocious behavior of early settlers in the Americas, or of Germans in the 1930s and 1940s, or South Africa under apartheid, or other historical regimes reflect badly on those nations today, unless those nations refuse to acknowledge and learn from past evils and mistakes. I'm also pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in supporting continued U.S. government aid and support for Armenia and the people of Nagorno Karabakh. These remain challenging times for the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and I hope our colleagues on the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate honor our request for that aid to continue. On this anniversary of the genocide against the Armenian people, let us recommit ourselves to ensuring that the truth about this heinous event is acknowledged by every country in the world.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. I believe my former colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who have brought this bill to the floor today have only the very best of intentions. They seek to prevent cyber attacks against our nation. So do I. Unfortunately, their proposed solution is a radical over-reach that would not stop such attacks but would open up the private lives and information of Americans for the government and business to see, at will. This bill contains the key phrase ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . .''. What does that mean? It means that notwithstanding even the limited privacy protections in the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, this bill would give businesses the ability to share the public's private data among themselves and the government by invoking the phrase ``cyber threat''. It means that notwithstanding the privacy protections in HIPAA, businesses can share personal medical information with each other and the government if there is a ``cyber threat''. And the definition of cyber threat is so nebulous, so sweeping that it can be invoked for almost anything that simply look unusual or is not immediately explainable. Chillingly, the bill in its current form would allow companies to share sensitive and personal information directly with the NSA and other military agencies, even if it is purely domestic, American information that is no way associated with foreign threats or national security events. CISPA would allow companies to share personally identifiable information without making even reasonable efforts to protect it. Finally, CISPA grants broad immunity for any ``decisions made'' based on cyber information, regardless of whether the company was acting recklessly or causes unintended collateral damage. This week the President indicated that he would veto this bill were it presented to him in its current form, as well he should. The better outcome would be for this bill to never reach his desk. Many competent security experts have shared their views with Congress that we can better protect our nation from cyber attacks without compromising the privacy and interests of our citizens. I regret that their counsel has been ignored, which is why I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this badly flawed bill.