Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for decades, Americans have been calling on Congress to support the designation of a Red Rock Wilderness Area on the Colorado Plateau in Utah. In 1984, the people of Utah began to conduct a volunteer driven wilderness inventory of America's Red Rock Country. Soon thereafter--in 1989--former Utah Rep. Wayne Owens introduced America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Then in 1996, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began their own survey of the Red Rock Wilderness Area. During this time President Bill Clinton, using the Antiquities Act, proclaimed Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The next year, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois first introduced a Red Rocks bill in the Senate. In recent Congress Rep. Maurice Hinchey introduced a Red Rock bill in the House. Today, Senator Durbin and I are introducing companion bills to protect 9.5 million acres of federal land as wilderness in Utah's Red Rock Country. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will protect from development one of this country's most spectacular landscapes. Deep red canyons, windswept mesas and naturally sculpted sandstone formations will define the Red Rock Wilderness Area. Places like Labyrinth and Desolation Canyons; Cedar Mesa and the San Rafael Swell; and of course, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. All of the lands proposed for wilderness in our bill are already federal lands managed by the BLM. All of these lands would be preserved for all time and for all Americans--existing as they are--sculpted and defined by the forces of nature and the hand of God . . . Wilderness designations have a strong bipartisan history in Utah. In fact, in 2006, my friend from Utah and current Chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Land and Environmental Regulation sponsored legislation that created the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will preserve some of the last unbroken tracts of lands in Utah, all while continuing to uphold the land's multiple use mandate under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act. A wilderness designation will also allow for the protection of natural environments and watersheds, ecological diversity, native habitat, and a range of recreational opportunities such as hiking, backpacking, hunting and fishing. Right now off-road vehicle use and encroaching oil and gas development pose major threats to an area that desperately deserves wilderness protection. A gallon of gas will in the tank of an ORV will only take you so far, but a vote to designate America's Red Rock Wilderness Areas would perpetuate for all time. I thank my colleagues in the House who have joined me in cosponsoring this legislation today, and I thank Senator Durbin and his colleagues for their support in the Senate. I urge immediate consideration of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act in the House.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, for centuries, we have lauded the achievements of great entrepreneurs, whether the automobile industry of Henry Ford or the iPhone of Steve Jobs. Business was the province of people with money. As the old cynical joke goes, banks would loan money only to people who don't need it. So throughout the world, and especially in the post-colonial developing world, the chance of escaping poverty and living a dignified life seemed an impossible dream for millions and millions. One person has helped transform the dream into a possibility--in fact, a reality-- of family sufficiency for people all over the planet. When the Nobel Committee awarded Dr. Muhammad Yunus and the financial institution he created, the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, the Nobel Peace Prize a few years back, the Committee made the award for ``their efforts to create economic and social development from below.'' I'll phrase it differently. Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank received the award for treating people with dignity and giving millions around the world hope. Today, in the rotunda here at the U.S. Capitol, we honor Dr. Yunus with the Congressional Gold Medal. Muhammad Yunus has shown us being a visionary does not mean promoting the impractical or the impossible. Unlike some economic theories advanced over centuries, Dr. Yunus' theories have been proven to work. To date, the Grameen Foundation and the bank and its partners have helped 9.4 million of the world's poorest people receive microloans. The bank has given loans of a few dollars to millions to those who, by traditional standards, are not worthy of credit. His idea of a socially conscious business focused on serving the poor flew in the face of conventional economic theory and certainly in the face of existing banking practice. But it worked. Recipients paid back the loans and got ahead financially. The Grameen Foundation's financial outreach to people living below the poverty level has been life-altering for women in Nigeria and Haiti and Cambodia and Peru. Dr. Yunus has inspired similar local efforts in dozens of nations, including our own. His life and work are a testament to the difference a single person can make here on Earth. Dr. Yunus' legacy will be measured not simply by the many awards he has won over his career, such as we honor him with today, but by the current and future generations of people who will travel the road from poverty to success and sufficiency because of Dr. Yunus' vision and commitment. He believes that we have the power to end poverty--not just to alleviate it, but end it--and we should take him seriously. Muhammad Yunus is showing us how. I ask my colleagues to join me in giving Dr. Yunus congratulations on receiving the Congressional Gold Medal today, and join me in giving thanks to him for making many, many lives around the world better.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1287.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey. Let's understand, the issue here is not about recess appointments or the Board quorum at a Federal agency or the Constitution. My Republican friends never raised this issue in hundreds of previous occurrences. Instead, what's happening now, the majority is using this misguided bill as a platform to continue a coordinated attack on the National Labor Relations Board and on American workers. H.R. 1120 is simply an attempt to effectively shut down the Board and deny all private sector employees their rights. The NLRB is an independent agency which serves as the only avenue for private sector employees to bargain collectively, to file unfair labor complaints, to conduct union elections if desired. The National Labor Relations Act stabilizes workplaces and ensures industrial peace. We must not continue these warrantless attacks on the only established avenue which brings employees to the bargaining table with their employers. What H.R. 1120 would do is roll back the clock three-quarters of a century, to the days of brutality and humiliation, the days before the institution of the Wagner Act, the days in which workers and their families suffered indignities, strife, even bloodshed. Having laws for orderly labor and management processes helps businesses. It helps industry. It helps citizens of all economic levels. It helps our economy. I regret that the majority is wasting time that could be used to address the real problems facing Americans. At every town hall citizens ask me: What about jobs? What about economic growth? But instead of helping workers raise their wages, improve workplace safety, ensure fair retirement, House Republicans continue their attack on the National Labor Relations Board and ignore the economic crisis facing American workers, and making the American Dream that much harder for Americans to achieve. This is not about abstract worker rights. This is about a productive economy where workers and their employers can work together.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. H.R. 254, introduced by my friend Mr. Chaffetz of Utah, would allow for the production of hydropower at existing facilities by deferring the debt associated with hydropower development on the Diamond Fork System, as you have heard. This would facilitate the development of 50 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power while generating revenue for the government for the use of its water facilities. This is what we should want to see. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Does the gentleman from Virginia have further speakers?

Mr. HOLT. With that, I will repeat my advice to my colleagues that we support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. I rise in support of the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act that Mr. Wittman and I have brought to the committee and now to the floor. From Lexington, where the shot still reverberates, to Gettysburg, the site of the battle described so brilliantly and concisely by Lincoln, to the stories of the American Revolution and the Civil War, it is at the battlefields that we bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our Nation's Founders. History is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it, live it; and the battlefields of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War provide a unique opportunity for Americans to experience where and how the epic struggle for our Nation's independence and identity took place. Unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl, and unplanned commercial and residential development are constantly encroaching on many of the significant battlefields of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. This encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to the preservation of these historically significant sites. Congress recognized this danger to our shared history and in the late 1990s created the American Battlefield Protection Program, a competitive grant program that matches Federal dollars with private money to preserve Civil War sites. Since Congress first appropriated funding for this program, it has helped to save more than 17,000 acres of hallowed ground in 14 States, again encouraging private funds for acquiring land from willing sellers. The bill before us today, H.R. 1033, would build on the success of the American Battlefield Protection Program in preserving Civil War battlefield sites and would reauthorize this program and extend the protection and preservation to battlefields from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. H.R. 1033 would allow officials at the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with State and local governments and nonprofit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites and provide up to 50 percent of the cost of purchasing the battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development, again from willing sellers encouraging the use of private funds. Previously, this legislation has been approved three times by this House with overwhelming bipartisan support, mostly unanimous. In a markup in the House Natural Resources Committee last month, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act again passed unanimously. As the Civil War Trust said in their letter supporting this legislation: The battlefields of the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War provide a unique opportunity for Americans to experience the epic battles that helped define our Nation. Preserving these American historic treasures is essential to remember the sacrifices that our ancestors made to secure our freedom and independence and preserve our Republic. With the ongoing bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812 and the ongoing sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, this is an opportune time to recommit ourselves to the protection of our Nation's hallowed grounds. Historical sites, once lost, are gone forever. We should act now to preserve these valuable sites. The National Park Service has done an inventory of sites around the country, and they point to many that need this protection now. I thank my colleague from Virginia for his enthusiastic support. I point out that there is strong bipartisan support for this legislation as cosponsors and other supporters. And I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I thank my good friend from Virginia, and would reiterate what he has said. In fact, the original legislation, which we are reauthorizing and extending through this bill, grew out of Virginia. It was because of the critical battlefields in Virginia that were at risk of being lost that this battlefield protection legislation was developed, but it will be beneficial across many States. If you look where the War of 1812 was fought--in the Deep South and around the Great Lakes--and where the Revolutionary War was fought, which was up and down the Thirteen Colonies, this is something that is of great national importance; and because the authorization is about to expire, it is needed; and because so many of these battlefields are at great risk of being overrun by sprawl and development, it is at the greatest need now. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. I would like to add to his economic numbers the fiscal fact that this does not appropriate any funds. We are just reauthorizing existing legislation and extending it. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to remind this House of the threat that climate change poses to our communities and to emphasize the need for increased Federal investment in new and innovative technologies to protect and improve the world we live in. This past October, Hurricane Sandy hit the mid-Atlantic, including my home State of New Jersey. Hurricane Sandy was one of the most costly storms in history. Society will bear the costs of climate change. Society is bearing the costs of climate change. The debt was wracked up as we recklessly burned fossil fuels over a century, filling the atmosphere with excess CO2. Now the debts are coming due as wildfires, droughts, superstorms, and floods--a costly debt in lives and dollars. We would be wise to invest in more resilient infrastructure and sustainable, non-fossil energy sources, in good science related to climate change. We as a country should rise to the challenge. The United States is not a poor, impoverished Nation. We are just acting like one. We should be investing as if we believe there is a future for us.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 192nd anniversary of Greece declaring its independence from the Ottoman Empire. After eight years, Greece was free again for the first time in nearly five centuries. As a former colonial people, we Americans instinctively have a sense of affinity for other peoples seeking to throw off the shackles of foreign rule. In the case of Greece, that feeling is particularly powerful because our very conceptions of democracy, self-government and citizen participation in the life of the nation come directly from ancient Greece. Today, the people of Greece are struggling with new and serious challenges, especially deep-seated economic problems that have not only rocked the economic foundations of the nation but have put Greek democracy itself at risk. The rise of the ``Golden Dawn'' movement is a reminder that anti-democratic forces in a society can emerge with frightening speed. I am encouraged that the overwhelming majority of Greeks have rejected the fascist and racist ideology of ``Golden Dawn'', and America should continue to do all it can to help our Greek ally achieve a full and enduring economic recovery. The bonds of friendship between America and Greece are strong in no small part because of our common commitment to a core value of Western civilization: democracy. On this 192nd anniversary of the rebirth of Greek democracy, I wish the people of Greece and all Greek-Americans a happy independence day.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member, my friend from California, and I rise in opposition to the SKILLS Act. Workforce investment has an important role in Congress, and it could and should be done in a bipartisan way. The government has a role to play in setting standards to preserve fairness and to expand access. The so-called SKILLS Act seeks to combine and reduce vital programs. It takes 35 programs and identifies them for elimination, and it says the Federal Government will leave a bushel basket full of money on the steps of each State capitol. This is an abdication of our responsibility to think hard, to work hard, to set standards. What some on the other side might call ``red tape'' or ``overregulation'' I would call ``standards'' in order to see that the workforce investment programs really address the needs of individuals with disabilities or the needs of identifiable groups, such as veterans and youth, who deserve our help, and that it will provide good services for those who need the help most, not the easiest cases: say, single parents, whose daily struggles with food and housing and transportation and child care make job training difficult. We had good ideas, the Democrats, ideas that were similar to what went into the original Workforce Investment Act--ways to improve these programs and make them serve all of these Americans. H.R. 803, for example, does not support library resource centers. It ignores individuals with disabilities and incumbent workers. The bill doesn't allow libraries to partner fully in the workforce investment programs. Last year, I introduced an amendment to authorize libraries to engage in statewide employment and training activities. No such this year. Many low-wage workers, often single mothers, struggling, need special help. My home State of New Jersey had online learning for low-income workers. By creating grants for online learning, such as laptops at home, we could provide many of these workers who have to stay at home and raise families the opportunity to improve their skills and enter the new economy. Yes, that should be in this program for the Nation. The Rehabilitation Act is intended to aid individuals with disabilities. The amendments to the Rehabilitation Act in this bill before us today would reduce significantly the services for individuals with disabilities by eliminating programs and eliminating those dedicated funding streams, and saying instead: Well, you can do it if you want to. Incumbent workers do not get the help they need here. This act does nothing to improve those people in low-level positions who have the opportunity, with help, to move upward. We need to work together to provide our Nation's job seekers the resources and training they need. And we here in the Federal Government have a responsibility to set the standards to see that people of all sorts who need the help have the access.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill of the so-called SKILLS Act. Fifteen years ago, before I was in Congress, I watched with great interest as Congress, House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, worked on worker training and produced the Workforce Investment Act. I was impressed. This was the kind of thing that Congress should be doing. It was the kind of thing that made me look forward to the prospect of maybe going to Congress some day. I remember David Broder, then the dean of Washington journalists, wrote a column saying this is exactly the kind of thing that Congress should be doing--and they were doing it in a bipartisan way. And here we are today, 15 years later, with an ideological, partisan dead end. Now, let me make it clear: workforce investment is what Congress needs to do. The government plays an important role in training and fostering a strong and capable workforce. The so-called SKILLS Act does not invest in the workforce. Rather, it seeks to combine and reduce vital programs that workers need. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I, along with others, sought to help to develop and update an efficient, fair program that would help eager workers get the right training and get the right jobs. We had some good ideas to contribute. Some of them had been tested in my home State of New Jersey. We had some strong evidence that some of the programs that Representative Foxx's version had canceled, or sought to cancel, should be improved and retained. We had good legislative language for the majority party to consider, and we were rebuffed. Our efforts were in vain. American workers are now caught in the middle of this partisan, ideological effort. Individuals with disabilities, the disadvantaged, high-risk youth, veterans cannot afford to be abandoned by the majority party's proposal. It was interesting that the author of this bill said, well, only 6.8 percent of the SNAP participants use the workforce training. Oh, so 3 million people we can forget about. Is that the implication of that? No, I think the implication should be we should expand it to even more. We need to work together to provide our Nation's job seekers with the resources and the training they need to obtain and maintain quality employment. The underlying partisan ``consolidate it and then cut it bill'' will keep people out of work, not put them back to work. I urge the defeat of the rule so that we can have something more bipartisan, and I urge defeat of the bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. While this bill does exempt the Department of Veterans Affairs from sequestration, that is the only good news in this bill. H.R. 933 does provide the Department of Defense with a better balance between its operations and maintenance accounts and its longer-term investment accounts. However, it will do nothing to stop the $46 billion sequester for the Department of Defense, which will result in civilian furloughs, deployment and training cutbacks, and facility maintenance cuts. The bill shortchanges our homeland security needs by denying a requested increase for FEMA State and Local Grants, locking the program into its lowest funding level in history and shortchanging disaster preparedness and anti-terrorism funds to states, urban areas, ports, transit, and first responders. Communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy are also shortchanged by this bill. H.R. 933 does not include funding requests important for disaster recovery, cyber-security, water infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, and weatherization, including a request to lower the local cost-share from 65/35 to 90/10 for Army Corps of Engineers projects in communities affected by Sandy, hindering ability of local communities to recover and rebuild. The bill also violates the intent of the Affordable Care Act by failing to include a requested $949 million to implement health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, scheduled to begin enrolling participants in October. Funding is needed for IT infrastructure to process enrollments and payments, eligibility verification, call centers, and other assistance to help individuals and small businesses select and enroll in health plans. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this badly flawed bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be support this very good bill. I only wish it had been allowed on the House floor a year ago for a vote. For the first time in years, the Congress is poised to pass a VAWA reauthorization that is worthy of the name. Finally, we will be providing real protections for a number of vulnerable populations among America's women. Of course, this bill almost didn't make it to the House floor. The House majority was going to simply sit on S. 47 and offer their own VAWA substitute. After a massive public shaming, the majority backed down. They are still offering their own so-called substitute--which is a sham--but we will also have the chance to vote on the Senate bill, which is the true VAWA reauthorization. This bill provides tangible, enforceable protections for LGBT, Native American and immigrant victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. The bill will help ensure the availability of services to all victims of domestic and dating violence, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity. S. 47 also provides authority to Native American tribes to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators for a narrow set of crimes related to domestic, dating violence and violations of protecting orders. The Senate bill also adds stalking to the list of crimes for which victims can receive protection through the U-Visa program. Finally, S. 47 also includes authorizations for programs preventing human trafficking, sexual assault on college campuses, as well as additional resources to address rape kit backlogs. Madam Speaker, this day has been entirely too long in coming, but I am pleased that it is finally here and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and sending it to President Obama for his signature.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, of course Congress should make sure the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration and other government agencies are funded sufficiently to help communities recover from natural disasters like Sandy. H.R. 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, would add ``houses of worship'' to the list of eligible entities that can receive direct government assistance from FEMA. Religious institutions are important to our communities. Unfortunately, as drafted H.R. 592 is unconstitutional. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a government subsidy used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was constitutional only if the buildings could never be used for religious activities. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court held that no taxpayer funds could be used for maintenance and repair of facilities in which religious activities take place. The types of buildings that this bill seeks to make eligible for direct government funding--houses of worship--are inherently used for religious activities and the bill would have the effect of unconstitutionally funneling taxpayer money for religious activities. Under current law, houses of worship are eligible for Small Business Administration loans to help rebuild in the wake of a disaster like Sandy. Thus, there is already federally available aid that is neutral in its application that churches, synagogues and other houses of worship can avail themselves of without implicating the government in providing direct support to religious institutions. And private insurance companies have long provided such policies for houses of worship. As I have since Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey, I will continue to push for the maximum possible funding--including disaster recovery loans--for all New Jersey communities impacted by this and future storms.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, all of us condemn this reckless, provocative nuclear test by North Korea. North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear capability is destabilizing and not in the interest of the people of that nation, who suffer daily under one of the worst dictatorships the world has seen. Yet even as we condemn this test and seek to prevent future ones, we must not make the mistake of believing--as this resolution asserts-- that supporting more money for a ballistic missile defense system is the answer. America has wasted literally tens of billions of dollars since the 1980s in pursuit of a ballistic missile shield that is not technically feasible and is viewed as destabilizing by our international partners, especially Russia. While I support this resolution's condemnation of North Korea's test, I do not support its call for spending more money on a failed missile defense effort.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the birth of Charles Darwin. Only rarely in human history has someone shown a fundamentally new way of thinking about the world, an insight so revolutionary that it has made possible further creative and explanatory thinking. In my previous field of physics, we have Galileo and Newton and Einstein. In biology, at the top of any list would be Charles Darwin. Without his insights--without his recognition that natural selection enables ever-increasing complexity and functionality and enables the development of ever-more wonderful forms of life--our modern understandings of biology, ecology, genetics, and medicine would be impossible, and our comprehension of the world around us would be vastly poorer. I've introduced a resolution to honor February 12 as a ceremonial Darwin Day, to recognize the importance of scientific thinking in our lives and to honor one of humankind's greatest thinkers.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I rise in opposition to this bill. Madam Chair, it is already over one month since Congress temporarily avoided the so-called fiscal cliff, and the clock is ticking on sequestration: the across-the-board spending cuts triggered on March 1 that will devastate our economy. Yet the majority in the House is wasting time voting on an unnecessary bill (H.R. 444) which shirks their responsibilities, while pinning the blame on the President. This legislation does nothing to address the urgent priorities of the American people--to create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce the deficit in a balanced way. It does not prevent the next self-imposed crisis, thereby threatening our recovery, risking job growth, and harming the middle class. The majority calls this the ``Require a PLAN'' bill, but this bill is a stunt, not a solution. Now is the time to take action to avoid the harmful effects of sequestration, not for political posturing. I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan gimmick and join me in voting against it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today the Supreme Court affirmed the dignity and independence of each American woman. The result of the decision was an understanding that our Constitution guaranteed decisions about a woman's own body should be left up to that woman, in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her religion, not the Federal Government. There is now a generation of women who do not remember the time before Roe v. Wade, a time when men assumed they could say what women could and could not do about their personal private health care and reproduction. We still have a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, over the past 40 years there have been numerous legislative attempts to deny this right to women and treat women who exercise control over their own bodies as criminals. We have to make sure that we defend also Title X, maternal and child health care programs, public access to reproductive health care, and that we reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But we must remember the time before Roe v. Wade and what is at stake.