Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. And then in other States--who cares, my friend asks--in other States, they're making it harder to cast absentee ballots. So that's going to exclude people. You know, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see behind this a purpose of exclusion. This is not, Oh, we're just trying to clean up the procedures here to make sure that it's all neat and tidy. No, this is deliberate exclusion.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. So, as efforts are made to put hurdles in the way to require proof that is difficult or expensive to get, that is, if offices are closed, and open periods for absentee ballots are shrunk, and early voting is discontinued as it has been in some States--in fact, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia have succeeded enacting bills that reduce early voting--all of this serves only to reduce the dignity of Americans by saying the principle of equality applies except for some people, some people as I said, who might have physical disabilities or might be elderly or might be low income. But, more than that, it deprives us of a working democracy. The reason, the history of America has been a history of expanding the franchise so that we could have a more stable, productive democracy. We want everyone to vote. It makes this a richer country in every way. I thank the gentleman for setting aside this time. I can't think of a more important topic to be debated in this great Chamber.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. If this is such a noncontroversial amendment, I ask the gentleman to accept it.

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

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. I am opposed.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to make one thing clear, which is that the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If this amendment were to be adopted, it would be incorporated into the bill, and the bill would be immediately voted upon. As written, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill would not prevent potential beneficiaries of this act from doing business with the Government of Iran, whose rogue actions threaten our interests and, through their terrorist intermediaries, the interests of our ally Israel. It's a gaping loophole that this final amendment would close. The U.S. has a comprehensive embargo against the Government of Iran. Recent events have reminded us exactly how clever the agents of the Government of Iran can be in circumventing U.S. and international law in an effort to keep funds flowing to the Iranian clerical dictatorship. We saw that in the debate last week over a mining bill, during which a link between an American company and an Iran foreign investment company was discussed at length. Last week, our colleague from Florida (Mr. Deutch) offered the Republican majority an opportunity to close the loopholes in the mining bill that could benefit Iranian entities. Regrettably, that amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. I come to offer the majority another chance. The bill on the floor today would leave the door open to similar abuses. This final amendment would close any loopholes in the embargo by targeting intermediaries--those who run Web sites or act as broker- dealers--who are seeking to provide help to unaffiliated issuers to do business around the globe. This final amendment mandates that those who want to benefit from the provisions of this bill must not have any interest in doing business with the Government of Iran. Furthermore, they cannot be affiliated with any person who is doing business directly or indirectly with the Government of Iran. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious amendment. This final amendment is really a commonsense safeguard measure. We all know that money is fungible, including securities. We all know that Iran's dictatorial regime is feeling the pinch from the sanctions the United States has already imposed. The radical clerics that control Iran's government are constantly searching to get the money and goods they need to stay in power and to threaten our interests and, through their terrorist intermediaries, threaten the interests of our allies in Israel. Without this final amendment, this bill would provide them with a possible opening to do so. This final amendment to the bill will help slam shut the door for that option. I urge all of us to support this final amendment to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Is the gentleman seeking to yield time to me?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and disappointed that this duplicative and needless resolution reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the official motto of the United States is being considered today. It is a solution in search of a problem and it comes at the cost of addressing the jobs crisis in our country. With 25 million people out of work, job creation must be our top priority and we should be working every day to help get Americans back to work. Does anyone seriously believe that ``In God We Trust'' has come under attack? It is my experience that the American people do not need to be told to respect the symbols of our nation and our national motto. They already do. Some have raised questions about whether the national motto violates the First Amendment protections against the establishment of religion. Supreme Court Justice Brennan answered those concerns when he said, ``The truth is that we have simply interwoven the motto so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits.'' Finally, one of my constituents wrote to remind me prior to 1956 ``E pluribus unum'' or ``Out of many, one'' was the de facto motto of the United States. I can't help but wonder whether it wouldn't be a better motto again today. As we face great challenges, we should always remember that we are all in this together.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. I am pleased to come to the floor tonight to talk about a serious issue: whether the voice of the people will be heard. As citizens of this Nation, the voting franchise is not just our constitutional right; it is the right through which all other rights are secured, our primary voice in how this country is run. And right now around this Nation, there are people who are working actively to disenfranchise specific sectors of our citizenry. How is this happening? Well, this year, in 38 States, there is legislation being considered or, in some cases, already approved to make it more difficult for citizens to register to vote, making it impossible to vote early, and to require identification that serves to eliminate or restrict voting for large numbers of people. Restrictions on voter registration have placed such burdens on groups organizing community-based voting drives--such as the League of Women Voters--that several organizations have suspended voter registration drives in some States due to the onerous nature of the legislation. Now, if there were a threat of voter fraud as the proponents of these laws assert, it might make sense, but there is no threat of voter fraud. Are there rampant cases of impersonation, voting as someone else? No. Voter fraud is not rampant. There are not numerous cases of impersonation. There may be isolated instances, sure, of alleged voter fraud, but to disenfranchise millions of people because there are a few cases is really contrary to the American system of government. In 23 States and the District of Columbia that allow voters to show both photo and nonphoto ID, such as a utility bill or a bank statement, there is no evidence of voter impersonation, no evidence that fraud is occurring. It's a phantom menace of fraud that is the basis for a well- funded movement around the country making it difficult for eligible voters to cast their votes. Are photo ID laws prohibitive? Yes, they are. A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice of NYU law school concluded that the newly enacted State laws affecting more than 5 million eligible voters will disproportionately disenfranchise young, low-income, elderly, and minority voters. In 2006, the Brennan Center completed a nationwide survey of voting-age citizens and found that African American voters are more than three times as likely as Caucasians to lack a government- issued photo ID. Restrictions on registration, limits on early voting, and photo ID requirements at the polls all serve to discourage young, low-income, minority, and elderly voters from participating in their constitutional right to vote. Should they reach the polls and successfully cast their ballot, of course we have to ask whether their vote will be counted accurately. In the past, literacy tests and poll taxes were used to selectively allow certain citizens to vote and to exclude others. Those laws were and are illegal. We should make sure that they remain illegal in the 21st century. 21st century poll taxes, which, in effect, these restrictions are, seek to suppress the voices of people who have a right to vote and whose voices should be recorded because we need their wisdom at the polls. Now the motto should be, ``Everyone Counts.'' And there's much to be said--and we'll say this at another time--about making sure that every vote that is cast is counted. Election auditing can be used to ensure that voting errors are minimized, performing a check on the results recorded by electronic voting machines against a verifiable record, paper record of the vote. But tonight we want to talk about the systematic disenfranchising of people who are citizens, who should be voting, and whom we should want to vote. I am pleased that my friend has taken this time tonight, and I am certainly pleased to join you.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. Our first priorities in the House of Representatives must be helping to foster job creation and supporting middle class families. We are now 280 days in this Congress without passing a jobs plan. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to continue their radical assault on reproductive health care in the guise of preventing the use of federal funds to pay for abortion procedures. These bills and amendments are as unnecessary as they are offensive. Federal law already prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services except when a woman's life is endangered or she is a victim of rape or incest. H.R. 358 would impose unprecedented limitations on comprehensive reproductive health services that go far beyond current law. The bill would force health plans to drop comprehensive coverage in state health insurance exchanges. The bill would allow hospitals to refuse to provide life-saving care to women--even if they are facing an imminent threat of death. Further, the provisions in this bill are so broad that it would allow states to prohibit access to birth control, including providing emergency contraception to sexual-assault survivors. This bill claims that it would protect life. But the bill could end the lives of women who are in need of life-saving emergency care. Sadly, we have all heard of the stories of women who are faced with the heart-wrecking decision to terminate their pregnancies when they are told that their baby will not survive to term. This bill will prevent women in that difficult situation from receiving needed health care services even if they are facing a life-threatening situation themselves. This bill goes farther than ever in an extreme attempt to limit health coverage for American women, and make a legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure inaccessible to women. Instead of debating how to put Americans back to work, we are again spending our time debating a bill that would result in substandard health care for millions of Americans. I strongly oppose H.R. 358 and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous piece of legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, this year a number of States are taking steps to make it more difficult for citizens to register to vote, to limit early voting, and to require photo IDs at the polls. The proponents of these new laws argue that they are designed to combat voter fraud. Clearly, we don't want people voting illegally, but these new laws are a solution to a problem that does not exist, and these steps will create serious problems. A recent report by the Brennan Center at NYU shows that these new laws would affect more than 5 million eligible voters and would disproportionately disenfranchise young, low-income, and minority citizens. In the past, literacy tests and poll taxes were used selectively to allow certain citizens to vote and disenfranchise others. They were and are illegal, and they should remain so. So we must oppose 21st century poll taxes which seek to suppress the vote of eligible voters and deny them their constitutional rights and weaken our democracy.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Protect Life Act. Our first priorities here now must be to help to foster job creation and support middle class families. We are 280 days into this Congress without even having a jobs plan from the majority. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to continue their radical assault on women's health and health care in the guise of preventing the use of Federal funds to pay for abortion procedures. This bill is as unnecessary as it is offensive and inhumane. The bill would penalize private insurers that offer comprehensive plans; would allow hospitals to refuse lifesaving care to women; and would prevent access to birth control, including providing emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. Instead of debating how to put Americans back to work, the majority party is spending our time on socially divisive bills that are going nowhere.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the pending free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, and Korea we are considering today. I do not support these agreements for one simple reason: I remain completely unconvinced that they can create jobs in the short term. Job creation must be our principal objective. That is what nearly everyone in New Jersey tells me is their concern. Given the tough economic times we face and the high rates of unemployment and underemployment, we need to take steps to help create jobs now. In my view these agreements fail that job-creation test. Instead of advancing these steps that might possibly start producing some jobs years from now, we should be passing immediately legislation that creates jobs now, legislation that helps homeowners now, and legislation that helps the middle class now.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker this week the House of Representatives considered two bills that continue the Majority's assault on public health and the environment. The so-called ``Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act'' and the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act'' would delay or eliminate air pollution safeguards for industrial incinerators, boilers, and cement plans. Should these dangerous bills become law, the air we breathe would contain more mercury, arsenic, lead, and acid gas. These misguided pieces of legislation would undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act and significantly limit the federal government's ability to ensure that the air we breathe is safe and pollution-free. Sadly, these bills are just the latest in a long line of bills from the majority that put big polluter profits before the health and safety of the American people. From the Dirty Air Act that would remove EPA's statutory authority to regulate carbon pollution to legislation that exempts offshore drilling operations from having to control their pollution emissions and legislation that would allow power plants to emit more and more toxic air pollution, the majority seems intent on rolling back programs that preserve our environment, protect our public health, and grow our economy. For forty years the Clean Air Act has been successful in protecting public health and preventing deaths from respiratory disease because it was written to follow science as science evolved. The success of the Clean Air Act is because its regulations are based in science. Legislators shouldn't pretend to be scientists. I urge my colleagues to vote no on these dangerous bills.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the TRAIN Act. This misguided legislation would undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act and significantly limit the federal government's ability to ensure that the air we breathe is safe and pollution-free. Some in the Majority have used the title of this legislation to refer to EPA's so-called regulatory train wreck. Well, the TRAIN Act amounts to a wrecking ball for public health protections. Sadly, the TRAIN Act is the latest in a long line of bills from the majority that puts big polluters before the health and safety of the American people. From the Dirty Air Act that would remove EPA's statutory authority to regulate carbon pollution to legislation that removes accountability for offshore drilling operations, the majority seems intent on rolling back programs that preserve our environment, protect our public health, and grow our economy. For forty years the Clean Air Act has been successful in protecting public health and preventing deaths from respiratory disease because it was written to follow science as science evolved. The success of the Clean Air Act is because its regulations are based in science. Legislators shouldn't pretend to be scientists. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, nearly two-thirds of Americans say that job creation should be Washington's top priority. But no one here needs an opinion poll to learn that. I am sure all my colleagues are hearing what I hear by mail, fax, e-mail, Twitter, phone calls, Facebook, and passersby on the street. Everyone is saying, ``Congress, get on with it! Make jobs! Get America to work! Get my husband, my cousin, my daughter to work.'' And, yet again, the Republican majority in the House is playing political games--wasting time debating a senseless resolution when we could, and should, be doing the work that the American people sent us here to do: creating jobs and revitalizing our economy. I recently visited several manufacturers in Central New Jersey to hear directly from job creators about what the federal government can do to promote growth. The political circus surrounding the debt ceiling negotiations was not mentioned once. With 25 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, it's time to stop the political shenanigans and focus on the task at hand: putting America back to work. The debt ceiling debate this summer already wasted months that could have otherwise been spent focusing on job creation. In the end, the government made the responsible choice to pay its bills--case closed. Instead of further exacerbating the partisan divide on Capitol Hill, we should be coming together to fashion an effective, bipartisan jobs bill that the American people expect and deserve. How much time must we waste before we get serious about putting America back to work?

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the outsourcers' bill of rights. This bill would be devastating to workers across this country and kick off a new race to the bottom. The outsourcers' bill of rights is a naked attempt to directly interfere in a pending Labor Relations Board case. Now, there is much to be said about workers' rights and the importance of protecting them; but in the short time I have, let me just say a little bit about what this means for the American economy. It makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. It eliminates the only remedy to force companies to bring work back from overseas. Companies that make a commitment to the welfare of their employees--well-run companies--and make commitments to their home communities rather than shopping for the latest lowest pay scale someplace in the world actually do better in the long run. So the outsourcers' bill of rights is not only contrary to the interest of workers; it's bad for our economy at large. We need to improve worker protections, not weaken them. Yet the majority party and the proponents of this bill continue their assault on the rights of working men and women. It doesn't create a single job. With 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, the majority today continues their ``no jobs'' agenda, bringing to the floor a special interest that is dealing with one particular case rather than creating jobs. It is not good legislative policy to legislate on individual cases. I urge my colleagues to oppose the outsourcers' bill of rights.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act, H.R. 2218, which is a bipartisan bill to reform and strengthen the charter school program. I recently gave the graduation speech at the Princeton Charter School, a high quality charter that opened its doors more than a decade ago and was recognized as a blue ribbon school by the U.S. Department of Education in 2004. And I was pleased to see the success there. But I urged them to make sure they are well-integrated in the public school system in their community. We need to reinvigorate America's education system and give each and every child the opportunity to learn and thrive. I am an advocate of alternative forms of education including charter schools. I think these institutions can be viable and beneficial in promoting academic achievement and diversity. It is important to remember that charter schools are part of the public school system, and we must hold them to the same standards of broad educational access and same standards of accountability--which means we have to be willing to shut down charter schools that fail to meet expectations. Otherwise, charter schools are not true to their reason for being: to inject innovation and experimentation into the public school system. I am pleased that this bill increases accountability for charter schools and ensures states use a schools performance as a primary factor for charter renewal. I have long believed that charter school innovations and best practices must be shared with other school districts--urban, rural, and suburban school districts alike. This requires work on both sides: outreach by the charter schools and acceptance by the traditional public school system to learn what there is to be learned. I worked with Rep. Polis to include such language in his ALL-STAR Act. That is why I am pleased that the bipartisan legislation before us today includes provisions to require charter schools to disseminate best practices with other public schools. This legislation also ensures that States work with charter school authorizers to put in place the quality controls necessary for holding charter schools accountable, including annual performance data and financial audits. These provisions will lead to more replication of high-quality charter schools nationwide. I share the concerns of some that more can be done to improve the accountability, equity and transparency of charter school, and as we continue to move this bill through the process, I hope additional improvements can be made. But we should all recognize that this bill makes a great deal of progress from the existing program and deserves our support today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I did not return to Washington in time on Monday September 12, 2011 and missed three votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 2076-- Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act (Rollcall No. 699), ``yes'' on H.R. 2633--Appeal Time Clarification Act (Rollcall No. 700), and ``yes'' on H.R. 1059--Protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports (Rollcall No. 701).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this week our nation paused to mark the 10th anniversary of al Qaeda's attack on America. When we remember September 11th, we remember our fear, our shock, our disbelief, our grief. We remember images we wish we could forget. We remember loved ones we wish we could visit just once more. We remember how those who lost a family member channeled their grief and anger into a positive force for change. In retrospect, we know our fears and our reaction to them were exaggerated. We allowed ourselves to become more suspicious and distrustful, more militant, more divided. And yet September 11th was not only among our darkest hours, but also among our finest. I remember Todd Beamer of Cranbury, who, along with the other passengers on Flight 93, gave his life to prevent another airplane being used as a weapon against the Capitol or the White House. I also remember ``the Jersey Girls''--Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg--who along with other family members successfully fought to have the 9/11 Commission created. These men and women of 9/11--those who died and those who guard their legacy--remind us all what is great and good about our Nation and its people. Yet I feel hopeful. September 11th was not only among our darkest hours, but also among our finest. Strangers guided strangers away from the collapsing towers. Across the country, lines stretched around the block of men and women waiting to give blood. For at least a moment, we saw our conflicts and rivalries as what they truly are: small and earnest differences among the brothers and sisters of the American family. Tragedy has a way of bringing people closer together. It doesn't minimize our differences; it magnifies everything we have in common. I am hopeful today because I believe that, in spite of all the challenges we face, we still have so much in common. We still remain capable of such great things. As we remember our grief, I hope we also remember our unity--and realize that we are bound together as tightly today as we were a decade ago.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant support of this bill. This bill is, by the conventional standards of the House, an appropriate vehicle for meeting many of the routine needs of the Intelligence Community. However, it completely fails to undertake the kind of probing, large-scale reassessment of the structure, mission, and purpose of our intelligence enterprise in a post-bin Laden era. I regret that Congress has not shown the stomach for the kind of thorough, comprehensive, and brave review of intelligence activities that was undertaken by the Church Committee in the 1970's. Given the events of the last decade, such a review is both long overdue and very badly needed. Despite my strong reservations about what this bill does not but should do, I will support this bill.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, many have expressed deep concern about the security situation in the Middle East. There are many hopeful signs from the so-called Arab Spring, but there are also concerns about the security of Israel and neighboring States. Several among us and among my constituents expressed concern some months ago about what would happen with a weakened border between Egypt and Israel. And, as we all know, on August 18 several groups of terrorists killed eight Israelis, wounded several more in attacks along the road leading to Eilat. This is just one example of what we need to pay attention to in the area. Will Egypt become a staging ground for more terrorist attacks against Israel? Can al Qaeda gain new safe haven in any of the countries undergoing massive political change? We hope not, I would like to think not, but it is important that we have good, solid intelligence assessments of the situation. My amendment would direct the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress within half a year of passage of this law an estimate on the implications of these revolutions for the security of the State of Israel and to report to Congress in a way that is accessible to all Members of Congress on the implications of the so- called Arab Spring and the changes in the countries around the area. This amendment is for obvious reasons. Israel is an important ally and really is founded on principles of law and fairness and justice, and we want to see those values upheld and extended. I recognized, in conversations with Chairman Rogers and the ranking member, that an amendment to this legislation is, perhaps, not the best way to accomplish this. So in a moment I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, giving notice to the Chair, but with the understanding that we will make this same request of the Director of National Intelligence by way of a letter and that we will have available to Members of Congress this estimate of this security situation. I thank the chairman and the ranking member very much for their cooperation on this. They are fully aware of this, which is partly why it is not necessary to offer an amendment to that effect.

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