Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey who is so expert in these matters. Matt from West Windsor 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. At age 25 and because of the Affordable Care Act, she can enroll as a dependent on her father's Federal employee benefits plan. Mary from Princeton wrote: Our 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. Many people in New Jersey tell me they need those things that the health reform law does for them, including protections against premium increases, as well as many others, like coverage for young adults, ensuring that people with preexisting conditions have access to health insurance and the elimination of lifetime limits. Now, the majority here who are trying to repeal this law say they want to keep those provisions. I say get real. You cannot repeal the law and still have the provisions of the law in effect.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4018, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act, of which I am a cosponsor, and I thank my colleague from across the Delaware River, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for his work on this extremely important issue. During the early morning hours of August 28, 2011, as Central New Jersey was bearing the brunt of Tropical Storm Irene, the Princeton First Aid and Rescue Squad was called to investigate a vehicle submerged in raging floodwaters with the occupants possibly trapped inside. Michael Kenwood, a 39-year-old volunteer emergency medical and rescue technician, entered the water tied to his partner in an attempt to reach the stranded vehicle. The two quickly realized that the current was too strong and tried to turn back, but Michael lost his footing and was sucked into the current. When he was pulled from the water, Michael was unconscious and not breathing. Michael died later that day, leaving behind a wife, Beth, and 3-year-old daughter, Laney. The submerged car turned out to be empty. Michael's death was a tragedy. But what compounded this tragic situation was the fact that, under current law, Michael's family was not eligible for federal death benefits because he was a volunteer member of a non-profit organization. This is just wrong. Michael's sacrifice would be no different if he had been a member of a paid fire department or EMS agency, and federal law should treat it as such. When he was called to enter those floodwaters, Michael did not stop to think, ``I don't get paid for this should I do this?'' He answered the call just like thousands upon thousands of others do each and every day, risking their lives in the service of others, regardless of whether or not they are paid. This legislation would expand federal benefit programs for the women and men who volunteer for fire departments and rescue squads and are injured or killed in the line of duty. Quite simply, it is the right thing to do. I am glad to see this bill being brought to the floor and I urge my colleagues to support it here today. Last Saturday, Michael's name was added to the National EMS Memorial in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I would ask that my colleagues join me in remembering Michael's sacrifice, and those made by the other police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical responders who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect ours.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is an illegitimate, politically motivated smear campaign. Never in the history of the House has a U.S. Attorney General been held in contempt. What makes this resolution particularly outrageous is that there is absolutely no basis for it. The Attorney General has testified repeatedly about Operation Fast & Furious. The Justice Department has turned over thousands of pages of relevant records about this incident. None of that matters to the majority. Neither does the fact that these kinds of operations were undertaken by the Bush administration. And the majority does not want the public to know that not a single witness was allowed to testify before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee about past ``gun walking'' episodes in the Bush administration. That's why this resolution and the Oversight Committee's ``hearings'' into Fast & Furious are not about ``gun walking''--they are about election year politics. Rather than dealing with the substantive issue of illegal guns and how to reduce violent gun-related crime, today we have a political stunt that does nothing to solve the problem that cost the life of a federal agent. Mr. Speaker, the public see this for what it is: a politically motivated legislative lynching--and those who support this illegitimate resolution will have to answer for it to the voters.

Mr. HOLT

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

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, much of this bill deals with new giveaways to Big Oil. The issue that I'm raising right now is to deal with a continuing longstanding giveaway. The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year; and in the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain that Americans are feeling at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. Oil companies are not paying any royalties to the American people on oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico from leases issued between 1996 and 2000. Zero. No royalties. They're pumping this oil for free without paying the taxpayers a single dime. Now they got this giveaway because of an incentive back in 1995 to companies to drill for oil when oil was selling for less than $20 a barrel. In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, no payments to the taxpayers for the use of their land. These oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of all the oil they produce offshore in the United States. They do not pay the American people one penny for this right, regardless of the fact that now oil is selling at about $80 a barrel. The number one entitlement program that should be on the chopping block for Congress shouldn't be Medicare. It shouldn't be Social Security. It shouldn't be health care for children. It should be the free drilling entitlement that oil companies are enjoying on public lands. According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this giveaway alone, this giveaway to Big Oil. The Government Accountability Office projects that all of this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 billion over the life of these leases. My amendment would recover those revenues because they belong to the American people. These oil giants already receive $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. They don't need an additional $1 billion or more per year in free drilling. The amendment would offer oil companies a choice: they can choose either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf but not be able to receive new leases, or they can agree to pay their fair share and be able to bid on new leases under this bill. And this amendment would not force companies to give up their leases. It would just simply impose a condition on future leases. The Congressional Research Service has agreed repeatedly that this amendment would not be an abrogation of contracts or constitute a takings, as some of my colleagues have suggested it might. As CRS has stated: As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion in setting the qualifications of those with whom it contracts. These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history of the world; yet they receive, as I said--and it's worth repeating--$4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. They don't need to be drilling for free on public lands as well. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about paying down the deficit and realistically financing necessary investments in this Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to recover roughly $1 billion a year that is rightfully owed to the American people. It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off, this giveaway to Big Oil. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chair, this amendment breaks no contracts. We are here because the Congress, well over a decade ago when prices were less than $20 a barrel, decided this giveaway made sense. If it made sense then, it certainly does not make sense now. Oil companies drill one-quarter of all offshore oil for free. If the other side is serious about addressing the deficit, this is revenue that should be received. Please support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of this body to the passing of Nicholas Katzenbach in the past month and to recognize the life and career of one of the most noteworthy public servants of our time. Anyone who lived through the 1960's, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam era in American politics will remember the name of Nicholas Katzenbach. However, because Nick was more interested in promoting liberty and justice than promoting himself and because he worked to help more famous people succeed--John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, among others--many people may not know as much as they should about this great American. U.S. Attorney General, Under Secretary of State, author of and political strategist for the principal legislation on civil rights, international envoy, decorated war hero and prisoner of war, he was directly involved in many of the major developments and events of our government during the Kennedy and Johnson years. Coming out of a distinguished lineage and an upbringing of privilege and accomplishment--Phillips Exeter, Princeton University, Balliol College on a Rhodes Scholarship, Yale Law School and editor of the Yale Law Journal--he became a forceful activist for civil rights and equality of opportunity for all Americans and a determined advocate for an anti- imperialist posture with respect to other countries. Anyone who observed Nick's confrontation with Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett in 1962 to force the enrollment of the first African American James Meredith at Ole Miss or his confrontation with Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1963 to force the enrollment of Vivian Malone and James Hood at the University of Alabama will not forget his commanding stature, his coolness and courage, and above all his obvious commitment to equal justice under law. In those situations Nick Katzenbach embodied by himself our national dignity and the authority of our government even more than the Federal Marshalls or the National Guard flanking him. Nick Katzenbach moved in the circles of the most powerful, where he became a master of our governmental mechanisms, yet he never forgot the purpose of power--to realize the hopes and aspirations of the people. He applied his impressive intellect to argue the law at the loftiest levels, yet never lowered his respect for the powerless whom the law is to protect. He recognized that the sharecropper or the Vietnamese rice farmer was as entitled to full respect as the banker or magnate. For years with unfailing determination he worked to extricate the United States from the Vietnam War, although unappreciated by the anti-war activists. He gave up his own vacations and holidays to work to defuse one after another domestic or international crisis or to bring prisoners home from foreign counties to the United States in time for Christmas. Despite his many accomplishments, and despite the real progress he brought to many areas of our society, his sense of duty and devotion to our country's founding democratic ideals were so great that he carried a lifelong disappointment that he and all the powerful, talented people with whom he worked still fell short of providing liberty and justice for all. The lingering harmful effect of race in our system of justice, our schools, and our economy weighed on him to the end. He lamented the crass and inglorious behavior that we see in so many public officials. I am sure Nicholas Katzenbach believed that all public officials, of course, should be as dignified, capable, and dedicated as he. Mr. Speaker, we should wish it were so.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I thank him for laying out so clearly all the shortcomings of this legislation, this oil-above-all legislation. It really is nothing but a big giveaway to Big Oil. The only jobs it will create will be in the boardrooms and the executive offices of the Big Oil companies because, since 2005, even as ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell have made more than $650 billion in profits--need I repeat that? $650 billion in profits--they eliminated more than 11,000 jobs, U.S. jobs, American jobs. And this is even while wind and solar were creating 50,000 jobs. Yes, there's a mismatch here. The bill before us presented by the Republicans says we'll study to see how much solar and wind energy might come from these lands in the future instead of saying let's get these energy sources of the 21st century rolling in these lands. It's not a plan of what we might get. The Markey amendment would have set standards for what we would get. Now, the Republicans have a long record of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil while cutting clean energy initiatives. That's what we see here. But what I wanted to talk about is the damage that would be done under this legislation. Health officials today here in Washington are warning people to avoid the heat and stay indoors. I don't think they had in mind that we stay indoors to pass legislation that chokes off public health protections, that modifies the Clean Air Act to make it ineffective, and yet that's what this bill does. By rejecting clean energy and pushing only for more fossil fuels to blanket the world with heat-trapping pollution, the Republican majority is essentially turning off the world's air conditioner and turning on the heater. There is a reason that the term ``fossil fuels'' applies--actually, two reasons. One is that these are derived from ancient plants that have decayed deep in the Earth and have produced petroleum. But there is another reason. ``Fossil'' means ``archaic.'' ``Fossil'' means ``out of date.'' ``Fossil'' does not mean ``21st century.'' Yet that's where this legislation is taking us--in the wrong direction and in the wrong direction with regard to environmental protection. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, we shouldn't be playing games with safety and the environment. The spill exposed a woefully inadequate environmental review process that was done prior to the oil and gas leasing. The environmental review done prior to the BP spill was so sloppy that response plans talked about protecting walruses. Obviously, they were just, in an unthinking way, using old Alaska pages. Tourism is the lifeblood of so many of our coastal communities. As the economy is struggling to recover, we can't risk the kind of environmental damage that derails economic progress in these areas. We should understand the risks of drilling, and we should strengthen the protections, not weaken them. Furthermore, there will be damage done to the whole leasing process. For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are so worried that putting some real standards--some expecting of good performance from oil companies--would somehow interfere with their production, let me point out some good news. Today, the Interior Department announced the results of an oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend. According to the Interior Department, today's leases that were bid on today, which have some lease standards apply that require increasing rental rates and shorter lease terms--the very things that the folks on the other side of the aisle here say would be killers, would stop the drilling--were record-setting lease sales, bringing in $11.7 billion even with these new conditions for offshore drilling; and they're saying what works here offshore won't work on the lands that we are talking about in this legislation. Now, I'll tell you what's a killer in this. A killer is the relaxing of the public health and environmental standards in the legislation. That's literally a killer.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us tonight would elevate energy production above all other uses of public lands in, really, contradiction of the principles of multiple use under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act. This would be to the detriment of grazing, hunting, fishing, and other recreation activities. Yet the plan envisioned by the majority's bill does not even require that the Interior Department consider the tens of millions of acres of public lands that oil companies are just sitting on and not using. Right now, oil companies have roughly 25 million acres of public land onshore on which they are not producing oil. Even worse, oil companies are not even beginning drilling activities on the vast majority of these nonproducing areas. In fact, last month the Interior Department released a new report which found that oil companies have nearly 21 million acres onshore under lease on which they have not even begun conducting exploration activities. Well over half of the public lands that oil companies have under lease onshore are idle. They are warehousing these leases. They are sitting on these leases. My amendment would require that the Secretary reduce the number of nonproducing leases as part of the plan for energy development on public lands that would be established under the underlying bill. Before we risk disrupting additional public lands, let's begin by getting the oil and gas industry to use the leases they have. It's simple: No seconds while your plate is still full. It's the height of cynicism that the industry would be squatting on these leases at the same time it is asking us to give them more land that belongs to the Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining on this amendment?

Mr. HOLT. I would be pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of this amendment, the ranking member, Mr. Markey.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, let me just repeat. Right now, the oil companies have 25 million acres of public land onshore on which they are not producing. They have 21 million acres of public land onshore under lease on which they are not even conducting exploration activities. I rest my case. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman very much. This, as we have heard, is a package of bills dealing with lands, and it is as partisan as can be. I wish that we were working in a bipartisan way. We could have a real lands package that would go somewhere. We could have addressed preservation of open space. This is important all across the country. I often hear from my colleague from Utah and others that, well, people in New Jersey don't have a lot of Federal lands. Let me tell you, this is important for people in New Jersey and every one of the other 49 States and in the territories of the United States. My constituents, who live in the most densely populated State in the Union, have demonstrated again and again their support for open space preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing for their kids and their kids' kids with safe places to experience the outdoors. This legislation does so many bad things I hardly know where to begin. It's another attempt to remove most of the protections of environmental laws. And as you've heard from the ranking member, Mr. Markey, it establishes an intrusive domestic security enforcement zone, a drone zone. Call it cute if you want, but as the ranking member said, if you're going to go to Big Bend or Acadia or any of the other national parks that fall in this, you'd better pay attention. It will do nothing to make us more secure. I could talk all day about the problems in this bill, but let me just focus on one. One reason that this bill is not going anywhere legislatively, because it is so extreme, is the controversial provision it contains on the brazen effort to give away part of the Tongass National Forest. The Tongass National Forest is known as a crown jewel of the National Forest System. Encompassing 17 million acres in southeast Alaska's panhandle, it's the last remaining intact temperate rainforest. It's the only remnant of the temperate rainforests that used to stretch from Northern California to Prince William Sound. Only half of the very large old-growth tree stands that used to cover the Tongass remain, and even the second growth land is spectacular. The other side was talking about how, well, some of this is not first-growth forest and, therefore, it's okay to give away to spoil. Now over a million people throughout the country--really, throughout the world--visit the Tongass National Forest annually to view the forest virtually unspoiled. The bill before us today transfers 100,000 acres of the best of the best lands in southeast Alaska to the Sealaska Corporation, including the fine salmon streams, the areas most visited, recreational sites and tourist sites, as well as subsistence sites. This bill gives public lands to a private company, which some might call an earmark. Well, whatever you call it, it's an unjustified giveaway. And since we're speaking of lands, I'd like to point out that I have introduced legislation to help preserve battlefields from the American Revolution and the War of 1812, legislation based on and including a very successful program to preserve civil war battlefields. This legislation, my bill, passed out of committee unanimously. Why was this not included in this bill? We could have been more bipartisan. My colleague, Mr. Markey, has gone through a long list and others have gone through a long list of the problems with this legislation. Suffice it to say, this is not about preserving lands for the long-term enjoyment and benefit of the American people.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 3 at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. My amendment seeks to address a problem we face here in the legislative branch: the congressional supply of pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence is exhausted. My amendment reduces and then reinserts $218,379 from the budget for the Government Printing Office to address this shortage so that they can provide these pocket Constitutions and Declarations. It is the exact cost of the last printing of the pocket version of the Constitution. But the money is not the root of the problem. The funding exists to print more pocket Constitutions today or tomorrow. What is lacking is the authority for the Government Printing Office to do so. The approval of this amendment appears to be the best parliamentary approach that we have right now to solve this immediate problem. Last week, as I prepared to visit a school in New Jersey where we would hold a ceremony of oath of citizenship for new citizens, I asked my staff to make sure we had pocket Constitutions to distribute to them. I always carry one. I find many of my constituents want to as well. When I discovered that the supply was exhausted and none have been printed for this Congress, I thought we should address that problem now. Except for the dozens of copies that might be on a shelf in Members' offices or the few that are in a bag in the back of my station wagon, Members find that they cannot get these pocket Constitutions for love nor money. Everyday, like so many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, I point to this Constitution. When I meet with students, I ask them, What is the greatest invention of humans? And they, knowing I'm a scientist, will sometimes come up with some technological answer. I would argue our greatest invention is our constitutional system of government. Our brilliant, resilient, self-correcting system of government, dreamed up in Philadelphia so many years ago, functions remarkably well over the centuries. And this simple, 45-page pocket Constitution that Members have been able to share with their constituents for generations allows everyone to understand better that brilliant system of government. Over my time here in the House, I have eagerly distributed these pocket Constitutions to students, new citizens, and many constituents who ask for them so that they can have their own. And who better to distribute these copies than a Representative working under the authority of article I of this ingenious document. A self-governing country works only if we citizens believe that it does. A self-governing country works only if the citizens provide the motive force for it to work. And familiarity with the copies of this ingenious, powerful, essential document provide the motivation and the mechanism for our government to work. Since 2009, when Members of the 111th Congress each received a thousand copies of this pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution, Members of the House have not received any new pocket Constitutions. That means despite the fact that we began this Congress, the 112th, by reading the Constitution in this House Chamber, which I was pleased to participate in, no Member of the 112th Congress has been provided with any additional constitutions. So with no new copies of the pocket Constitution since 2009, except these few that I have here, it is long past time to fix this simple problem with this simple amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. As I said in my remarks, the problem is not money; the problem is authorization. That can be accomplished by this joint resolution from the Joint Committee on Printing to the Government Printing Office, or it could be resolved through the appropriations, as I'm attempting to do now. And I should point out, as the gentleman refers to the other body, it is out of pride of this body that we say we will do what we should do and the Senate will do what they will do and we will try to get together to move legislation forward. It is our job here today to do what we can do and to educate the public about this ingenious system of government that has been so successful for 2 centuries. We should do this.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of this subcommittee and the ranking member for the work they've put into this. I rise with an amendment that is designed to ensure that our rail and transit systems have the additional resources, or at least some of the additional resources, that they need to help thwart any potential terrorist attacks on buses and trains. Now, just over a year ago, when our forces raided Osama bin Laden's compound, they discovered materials in his hideout indicating that he was planning attacks on rail and transit systems, and we have no reason to believe that al Qaeda's remnants have abandoned any such plans. As we've seen repeatedly, the threat is very real. Since 2004, terrorist cells have conducted successful and deadly bombings on major passenger rail systems in Spain, the United Kingdom, India, Belarus, with over 600 people killed, thousands wounded. And despite this threat, over the last few years, our country has been backsliding in providing our rail and transit systems the resources they need. In years past, rail and transit security funding had its own line item in the budget. But a couple of years ago, it was rolled into the overall State and local grant programs, and it's funding has been slashed, and slashed is not an overstatement, from a previous high of $300 million, down to only about $88 million this past year. The large reduction was made in the face of an existing $6 billion in rail and transit security funding needs identified by rail and transit operators around the Nation, as reported by the American Public Transportation Association. My amendment addresses part of this shortfall by moving a total of $50 million from three accounts--Overall Management and Administration, Intelligence and Analysis, and the Transportation Security Administration--to the State and Local Programs Grant Account for the express purpose of increasing funding available for rail and transit security grants. I propose these moves reluctantly, but we need the funding in the transit security. This would bring to $138 million the account for rail security, well above the $88 million currently there, but well below the $300 million that only a few years ago was the funding level. This amendment actually saves the taxpayer $36 million because of the difference in the account spend-down rates. It's a responsible amendment, I believe, that addresses a crucial vulnerability in our rail and transit security posture, and I ask support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. American Public Transportation Association, June 6, 2012. Hon. Rush Holt, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Holt: On behalf of the 1,500 members of the American Public Transportation Association, I am writing to express our support for your amendment to H.R. 5855, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The amendment aims to restore critical funding for the public transportation security grant program. Sharp decreases in public transportation security grant funding over the past several federal budget cycles have hampered the ability of transit agencies to make needed capital security improvements throughout their systems. Decreases in transit security funding could not be more ill timed as transit ridership continues to soar. In 2011, more than 10.4 billion trips were taken on public transportation as Americans commuted to work, school, medical appointments and their houses of worship. This trend has continued as dozens of transit agencies across the country have set ridership records over the first quarter of 2012. We must do all we can to ensure the safety and security of our riders and transit workers. We urge Congress to support your amendment and increase vital funding for the public transportation security grant program. Thank you for your continued support of public transportation, and we look forward to working with you on this and future legislation. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Brian Tynan of APTA's Government Affairs Department at (202) 496 4897 or email btynan@apta.com. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Michael P. Melaniphy, President & CEO.

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