Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on July 23, 2009, I did not cast a vote on an amendment to H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Had I been present for the vote on H. Amdt. 384 (rollcall 631), I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's fiscal future and for the passage of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, H.R. 2920. During my time in Congress, I have always strived to be a good steward of taxpayer money. In fact during a previous session of Congress, the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, presented me with its Fiscal Responsibility Award for my votes to maintain fiscal discipline, reject irresponsible tax cuts, and eliminate corporate welfare. In 2007, I was pleased that the House of Representatives restored the ``pay-as-you-go'' principle in the House rules when Democrats regained control of the House in the 110th Congress. This simple rule ensures that every new dollar of spending is offset and will not worsen the deficit. The House's pay-go rule requires that legislation affecting direct spending or revenues must not increase the deficit (or reduce the surplus) over a six-year or eleven-year period. I strongly supported these efforts. While a PAYGO rule is a good first step, H.R. 2920 goes further by applying automatically to legislation and provides an automatic enforcement mechanism to ensure Congress follows fiscal discipline. Fiscal discipline served us well in the past. In the 1990's with pay- as-you-go as the law, we turned the massive deficits of the 1980's into a record surplus under President Clinton. When President Bush came into office in 2001, he inherited a projected ten-year, $5.6 trillion budget surplus. Over the first six years of the Bush administration, however, the President and Republican-controlled Congress turned that surplus into a projected ten-year, $2 trillion deficit and allowed the statutory PAYGO requirement to lapse in 2002. This was followed by 6 years of unrestrained spending under President Bush and the federal debt held by the public doubled. The most instructive gauge of the federal deficit is the federal debt as a percentage of our total economy or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the budget surpluses and fiscal discipline of the 1990's reduced the debt from 49.4 percent of GDP to 33 percent of GDP by 2001. During President Bush's two terms, that figure rose back to 41 percent of GDP. PAYGO is only one tool, but it is a strong one to return our Nation back to fiscal stability. The PAYGO rule forces Congress to identify inefficient or ineffective programs whose funding can be cut to fund higher priorities, such as health care, education, and clean energy. This rule also sends a message to the American people that the government is committed to putting the country back on stable economic footing. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2010 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill and my Amendment to increase the Math and Science Partnership program funding by $5 million. I want to thank Chairman Obey for including my amendment in the manager's amendment before us today. This program is the federal government's only generally available math and science teacher training program. By providing more resources to the Math and Science Partnership program at the Department of Education the program would be able to expand to additional schools across the county, and countless students would benefit from improved instruction in these critical subject areas. If our economy is going to grow, if our productivity is going to grow, we must do better in math and science education. Mr. Chair, this $5 million increase in funding is long overdue, and yet still far short of what is needed. We are not doing nearly enough in this area, and everyone says so. The Glenn Commission, on which I was honored to serve said so, the National Academies of Science have said so. And the recently released report by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Institute for Advanced Study entitled ``The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy'' called for increasing the ``supply of well-prepared teachers of mathematics and science at all grad levels by improving teacher preparation . . .'' That is why representative Ehlers and I led a letter to the House Appropriations Committee to increase funding for the Math and Science Partnership program to $450 million that was joined by 23 Members of Congress. In 2002, prior to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Eisenhower program provided $485 million for teacher professional development primarily in science and math. Yet, today the Math and Science Partnership program is funded at less than half that level at only $179 million. Earlier this year, Education Secretary Duncan stated that ``science education is central to our broad effort to restore American leadership in Education worldwide'' and yet the budget proposal from the Department flat funded this essential training program again. We need to change this cycle of recognizing problems, identifying solutions, and then failing to act. My amendment was offered to increase funding for the Math and Science Partnerships program, and I know all too well that the $5 million included will not solve the problem. I hope this serves as recognition that we cannot be a global economic power unless we make the appropriate investments in education, with special focus on math and science education. We may never know how many students could have benefited over the past seven years from full funding, but I hope that we will soon be able to restore funding to this program to its pre-2002 levels. Again, I want to thank the Chairman for including my amendment and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express regret that full funding for disability access programs under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was not included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as the amendment I offered to the bill would have done. Three years after its final implementation deadline, the promise of disability access under HAVA still has not been fulfilled and I believe we should make that a priority before the next general election. On June 10, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report indicating that much work is yet to be done to ensure full access to the polls. It stated, in part, that ``[w]hile the percent of polling places with multiple impediments decreased significantly from 2000, still a fair number--16 percent--had four or more potential impediments in 2008. Over 50 percent of polling places had one or more potential impediments on the path from the parking lot to the building entrance, while 14 percent had potential impediments from the building entrance to the voting area.'' According to the GAO, currently only 27 percent of polling places are fully accessible. Therefore, I believe it is time we distributed to the states the full amount originally authorized and contemplated by HAVA to ensure full access to the polls, in time to achieve that goal before the election in November 2010. It has been argued that additional funding is not needed in this bill because some funding previously appropriated has not been spent. But when one understands why, it becomes clear that the remaining funds are still needed. HAVA originally anticipated that funding for polling place accessibility and protection and advocacy could go directly to local election officials, but subsequently the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that it would only take applications from state departments of elections. Funds therefore had to pass through Congress, HHS, and state departments of elections before being distributed to local officials, which has significantly slowed down the process. The Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program has never been fully funded, and the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) advises me that this year, nearly ten months into the 2009 Fiscal Year, PAVA funding has still not been released to protection and advocacy organizations. This has forced them to ration carryover funds to allow continuity of existing projects, giving the appearance that they are sitting on money in the bank when in fact they are simply trying to keep their programs running on a shoestring without interruption. ``Those who question why PAVA funds still exist in accounts need to look no further than the inconsistent funding and distribution history of this program,'' NDRN said. That is why I offered an amendment to increase HAVA disability access funding by $20 million, and protection and advocacy funding by $5 million, so that the disability access funding in this year's appropriation bill would reach the level originally authorized and contemplated by HAVA. I regret that the full funding for disability access was not included in the bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that full funding for disability access under the Help America Vote Act is appropriated in the next fiscal cycle.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Pence, to the Fiscal Year 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill. I have long been a supporter of Planned Parenthood and the services it offers to my Central New Jersey constituents. Mr. Pence's purely political amendment would deny funds under Title X of the Public Health Services Act to Planned Parenthood health facilities throughout the country. It would cut these women off from their source of primary care. At a time when more and more women and families are facing difficulties in accessing health care due to a provider shortage in this county, Congress should be doing everything we can to ensure that women have access to a trusted health care provider. This should not be an anti-choice or pro-choice debate about one of the many services that Planned Parenthood provides. This amendment would have no effect on abortion services in our country. According to Federal statute, no money from Title X can be used for abortion services. Title X makes grants to public and private nonprofit organizations to provide family planning and basic reproductive health care information and services to low-income women. The Pence amendment would deny essential family planning services to the 5 million Americans that Planned Parenthood serves annually, including the 89,000 men and women in New Jersey. This debate should be about prevention. It should be about continuing to provide women with the necessary tools for prevention, including contraception and education. It should be about protecting women's health by providing women with access to reproductive health care. We all should be able to agree that we would like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and comprehensive family planning services that Planned Parenthood provides are a proven means to accomplish that. Title X has proven to be effective and prevents 1 million unwanted pregnancies each year. Planned Parenthood, as the Nation's oldest and largest family planning provider, is responsible for preventing 60 percent of unwanted pregnancies, approximately 631,000 unwanted pregnancies annually. Planned Parenthood's 841 affiliates make up 13 percent of all Title X providers and provide 1.7 million women with reproductive health care services under title X each year. 63 percent of these patients receive reproductive health care services and 37 percent receive family planning services. Cutting Title X funding to Planned Parenthood is nothing short of irresponsible. The low income women who are served through Title X are four times more likely to face an unintended pregnancy. As a safety net provider, Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in serving these women. We should not act to prevent women from getting the reproductive health care they need. I urge my colleagues oppose the Pence amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleague, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for yielding time to me. I certainly support what the chairman has done in this bill, and I commend him for it. I'm not opposed to redesign of our airspace, but I am opposed to FAA's current redesign plan. The FAA developed and implemented the redesign without consulting key stakeholders, for example, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, who are the primary users of these procedures. Last year the FAA changed what is known as the ``dispersal headings'' for Newark and Philadelphia airports despite insufficient testing, unpublished procedures and failing to train the pilots and controllers. This led to frequent miscommunication between pilots and controllers, planes steering off course and near-collisions. This amendment would strike the funding for continuing the New York/ New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan airspace design to allow time for the FAA, the National Air Traffic Controllers and other parties to work together to develop a comprehensive, multilateral approach to improving the system. Funding this project, going ahead as it is, is putting the safety of our constituents at risk, not dealing properly with noise or the efficiency of air travel. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, today I rise today in support of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and to commend Chairman Serrano and the subcommittee for their hard work in crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. This bill will fund many of the agencies we rely upon to protect consumers, taxpayers and investors, which has become so increasingly important over the past year. The housing, financial services and economic crises have created a tidal wave of repercussions, all of which have substantially increased the burdens and demands on these agencies. Therefore, I am pleased to support the increased funding in this bill for these purposes. For example, the bill includes more than $1 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), an increase of $76 million from Fiscal Year 2009. This funding will enable the SEC to hire an additional 140 investigators, attorneys, and analysts, and thus substantially increase its enforcement capacity. We need to do more to improve the effectiveness of the SEC than simply adding staff, but this is a very important first step. In addition, the bill includes $292 million in funding for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), more than $30 million more than was provided, in Fiscal Year 2009. The FTC is responsible for investigating and prosecuting unfair and deceptive trade practices, including foreclosure rescue scams, and predatory payday-lending, credit-repair and debt-collection services, all of which have been rampant during the current crisis. Also included is $113 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a modest increase from Fiscal Year 2009 which will help the CPSC continue to protect the American people from dangerous and unsafe products. Although the CPSC continues to work through implementation issues related to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, I support the Act, and the CPSC's continuing efforts to implement it in a fair and equitable manner, and the funding included in this bill will enable it to do that. The bill also includes increased funding for the Inspectors General of the Department of the Treasury ($30 million), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($38 million) and the SEC ($4.4 million), to enhance their respective abilities to ensure that the agencies are functioning effectively and without wasting taxpayer dollars. In addition, it requires the Department of the Treasury to report to Congress on the progress of the entities overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) in implementing their recommendations for TARP reform, and protecting taxpayer investments. To help stimulate the economy, the bill includes almost $850 million, an increase of more than $230 million, in funding to the Small Business Administration (SBA). These funds will enable the SBA to provide $28 billion in new loans to small businesses despite the continuing credit crunch, as well as $25 million in new mirco-lending. In addition, it provides $110 million for Small Business Development Centers and $8 million for technical assistance to low-income small business owners. It also includes $244 million, an increase of $137 million from Fiscal Year 2009, for Community Development Financial Institutions, which help provide credit to low-income communities. The funding includes $80 million to launch a competitive grant program for the purpose of renovating and developing low-income housing. And I am particularly pleased to say that, despite attempts in committee and on the floor to cut this funding in half, the bill includes $100 million in Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funding to enable states to improve the administration of elections and protect the integrity of the vote count. Voting is the foundation of our democracy--it is the right through which we preserve all others. Everything of value must be auditable, and that is especially true of our votes. That is why it is so important that states using paperless systems have all the funding they need to convert to paper ballot voting systems before the next general election, and that all states have the funding they need to conduct audits of electronic vote tallies. Although it has been argued that the states have not claimed all of their appropriated HAVA funding, and that they therefore must not need it, this argument disregards an important fact. In order to claim their HAVA funding, States must first appropriate 5 percent matching funds from their own coffers. This was extremely challenging in 2008, given the crushing fiscal burdens on States simply to meet their basic fiscal needs. And Fiscal Year 2009 bill that appropriated additional HAVA funding was not enacted into law until March 2009; therefore, it is too early to determine how many states will be able to begin appropriating the required matching funds as the economic recovery progresses. Therefore, it is not that the states do not need this money; it is that they cannot afford it. This is why my Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009, which would require paper ballot voting systems and routine random audits as a national standard, removes the matching funds requirement. In 2010, seven entire states and counties in a dozen others will not be able to independently verify the electronic tallies in their elections unless they use their HAVA funding to deploy accessible paper ballot voting systems now. Every jurisdiction in the country that has made a voting system change since 2006 has done this. It is time to make it a national standard. I thank the Subcommittee Chairman Serrano for his staunch support for and defense of this funding, and for engaging in a colloquy on the floor with me about it earlier today. This bill funds many agencies that play a critical role in protecting consumers, investors and taxpayers, and in stimulating the economy, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Chair of this subcommittee for producing a good bill, and I seek to enter into a colloquy with him about the importance of making voting systems auditable and about conducting audits of electronic election results. Voting is the foundation of our democracy. It is the right through which we preserve all other rights. Anything of value should be auditable, especially our votes. That's why it is so important that States using paperless systems have all of the funding they need to convert to paper ballot voting systems before the next general election and that all States have the funding they need to conduct audits of the electronic tallies. I would yield at this moment back to the chairman.

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman very much. We have a recent compelling example of how important this is. We have the resolution of the Senate race in Minnesota. If the only information available were an electronic tally, one candidate would have been presumed the winner without recourse, but because a bipartisan canvassing board was able to inspect and recount actual voter-marked ballots, they were able to determine that the other candidate actually won. Software electronic counts alone cannot be relied upon to ensure that the intent of the voters will be honored. In 2010, seven entire States and counties in a dozen others will not be able to verify independently the electronic tallies in their elections unless they use their HAVA funds to deploy accessible paper ballot voting systems. We have not succeeded yet in establishing a national standard.

Mr. HOLT. However, I urge every jurisdiction in the country that has changed their voting system in the last several years to move to an accessible paper ballot system. I thank the gentleman very much for his support.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. Nothing is more important in a democracy than the integrity of the democratic process. Everything we do in this body is based on the assumption that the voters put us here as the result of a fair, accessible, and accurate process. If there is anything we should not shortchange, it is our ability to conduct the most exemplary elections in the world. And we have not reached that standard yet. In fact, the major national election official organizations and more than 25 civil rights, disability rights and other public interest groups have asserted that local jurisdictions still need all the funding originally authorized by HAVA simply to carry out HAVA's original requirements. I have heard the gentlelady speak. But this letter addressed to every Member of Congress from such organizations as the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the American Association of People with Disabilities, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and others says that it is ``imperative,'' in their words, that State and local governments receive all the funding that is coming to them, that should be coming to them from HAVA. It should not be cut. They need this funding for poll-worker training, for voter education and for putting in place voter systems that are accessible and reliable, and as we discussed earlier, auditable. They say in this letter that full funding is necessary to fulfill the promise of HAVA, and I include this letter for the Record. I urge my colleagues to support the modest HAVA funding in this bill and to defeat this amendment. March 17, 2009. Make Election Reform a Reality--Support Full Funding for HAVA Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply appreciative of the funding appropriated for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in FY08 and FY09 and urge you to support full funding and appropriate the remaining $470 million of authorized funding in FY10. Of this amount, $442 million is for the federally-mandated processes and equipment that state and local governments were required to have in place for federal elections beginning in 2006 and $28 million is for assisting state and local governments in making all polling places accessible and the protection and advocacy payments. It is imperative that state and local governments receive all of the funding they were promised to fully implement statewide voter registration databases, to keep up with the spiraling costs of purchasing and maintaining voting equipment and to ensure proper poll worker training and voter education in this environment of continually changing voting processes and procedures. The lack of full federal funding for HAVA has led man state and local governments to scale back on their inital plans for implementation. Most devastatingly, initial Congressional delay in providing proper funding for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ultimately prevented the timely development of the voting system guidelines and the implementation of a federal voting system certification program. This led to cost increases for state and local governments that in some cases were unable to utilize existing equipment and others that had to replace voting equipment more than once in an effort to comply with evolving guidance to ensure both accessibility and security. While the efforts of the EAC and NIST have since been funded, delay in their funding has contributed significantly to cost increases for state and local governments. Full funding is necessary to fulfill the promise of HAVA and provide resources to state and local governments to meet the new and changing expectations for voting equipment and procedures. Should you have any questions, please contact the organizations listed below. Sincerely, organizations representing state and local election officials International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT). National Association of Counties (NACo). National Association of Election Officials (The Election Center). National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). civil and disability rights and voter advocacy organizations Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD). American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Asian American Justice Center. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Common Cause. Demos. Fair Elections Legal Network. FairVote. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. League of Women Voters of the United States. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund (NALEO). National Council of La Raza. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund. Paralyzed Veterans of America. People For the American Way. Project Vote.

Mr. HOLT. Again, I hear the comments of the ranking member. It's important to point out, in this letter, signed by the major election official organizations in the country, the Secretaries of State, associations of counties, election officials and so forth, they say that the rate at which the funding has been available to them in the past has led, in their words, ``many state and local governments to scale back on their initial plans for implementation'' of HAVA. We must, again, in their words, meet the promise of HAVA. This is not an imagined expense. This is a real expense to preserve democracy, and we have it on good authority, from the people who are doing the work, that this money is needed.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chair.

Mr. HOLT. I understand the hope of my colleague from Texas to rein in excessive government spending, but he is really misguided on this one. This is a project that would provide real benefit to the residents of the Borough of South River, and as a demonstration project it would serve as an example for the rest of New Jersey and the Northeast and indeed the whole Nation of how to use technology to conserve energy, to use it more wisely. In fact, every dollar spent, to paraphrase my friend here, on smart metering, is indeed a dollar well spent. My constituents in New Jersey pay some of the highest utility rates in the Nation. In the Borough of South River, they are seeking assistance to help decrease the electric bills of the borough residents, and they're seeking to demonstrate that this works. Funding for the automated remote electric project will provide relief to the constituents in this municipal energy system, and it will serve as a wonderful example. South River owns and operates its own utilities. It's moving toward implementing a borough-wide smart grid. This metering that the borough intends to purchase is the first step toward this eventual goal. They would provide real-time consumption information. It would allow the users to make wise decisions based on the real cost of service in real time. It's just exactly what we have been discussing here in the House of Representatives in recent weeks. It's well established in the scientific community that climate change of recent decades can be attributed to the way we produce and use energy and that climate change is altering our planet in ways that are expensive and deadly. I spoke to the mayor of South River yesterday, who assured me that he is ready to go ahead with the project. It's one of their top priorities. They have been working on it for years, one in which they have already made considerable investment in preparing an efficient municipal utility. This will serve, as I say, as an example. I might add that the gentleman's home State of Texas ranks 32nd in the Nation in tax dollars returned from Washington. My home State of New Jersey ranks considerably lower than that. As a so-called donor State, I don't apologize to my constituents for working to return their tax dollars. I really only regret that all municipal utilities in the country are not funded to convert to smart metering. This is certainly a good investment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. May I ask the Chair the remaining time?

Mr. HOLT. Let me try to figure out why it is that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is proposing to do this. I can assure, I think it is unlikely that he knows as much about this project as I do, but I must say energy has been my professional field for most of my life. This is, I would argue, a good investment. To refer to the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts a while ago, this approach of trying to deal with the deficit and excess spending one project at a time is sort of a waste. If the gentleman is really concerned about this, I presume that we will find his vote in the ``aye'' column next week when we consider pay-as-you-go legislation. If he's concerned about earmarks, as a concept, then I would say, yes, the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, speaking on behalf of the White House, should have included this project in their request to Congress and many more like it. But they didn't. And so, is the gentleman saying that the House of Representatives should just be an up-or-down vote on what the President sends to us? The President will decide what the budget should be. We take it or leave it. Well, no, that's not the way it should work. This is something that I offer. It provides no partisan political advantage. In fact, the mayor of this town is from the other party. No one from the borough, to my knowledge, has made any campaign contribution to any Member of Congress, any member of the borough government. No lobbyist is involved in this. This is just good policy. It should have been in the budget sent over by the President, but it wasn't. Lots of things should be in the budget sent over by the President, but they're not. That's why we scrub the budget and decide what should be added and what should be subtracted. Call it earmarking if you want, but I don't. I would hope that the gentleman would not think that we should abdicate our responsibilities here as Members. I yield back my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010, and commend Chairwoman DeLauro and the subcommittee for their hard work in crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. This bill will increase funding to many important programs that American families rely on for their health and well-being, especially during these challenging economic times. For example, the bill will provide $61.4 billion in funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps), an increase of 15 percent above the funding currently available. With family incomes falling and unemployment rising, these funds are needed more than ever to enable low-income families to purchase food. In addition, the bill provides $16.8 billion in funding for child nutrition programs, an increase of 12 percent above the funding currently available, and $7.5 billion for the Women, infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program, a 10 percent increase above the currently available funding. These funds will enable children all over America to receive nutritious school lunches and breakfasts, and provide food packages containing nutritional supplements to children and pregnant and breast-feeding women who are nutritionally at risk because they lack the income to provide adequate nutrition. The bill also includes $180 million, 11 percent more than provided in the prior fiscal year, for the Commodity Supplement Food Program, to provide nutritious food to over a half million low-income women, infants, children, and elderly citizens struggling to make ends meet. The bill will expand this assistance beyond the 32 states currently receiving it, to six new states: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Delaware, Utah, Georgia and my home state of New Jersey. The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program also receive substantial funding: $50 million and $20 million respectively. And the bill contains substantial funding for international food assistance, including $1.7 billion for the Food for Peace Program, 13 percent more than currently provided, and $200 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, to provide food security and education and developmental support for the world's neediest children. And I am particularly pleased that this bill includes the full amount of funding for most of the organic programs I had requested funding for. For example, it includes $5 million for the Organic Transitions Research program, to facilitate the ability of farmers to convert to organic methods of production, $20 million for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, and $5 million each for the Community Food Projects and Hunger Free Communities programs, to facilitate the development of community gardens, community supported agriculture projects, farmers markets, and similar community food security projects. Especially, I am also pleased that my amendment to the bill to protect and strengthen the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic standards was included in the Manager's Amendment to the bill on the floor today. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the USDA Inspector General has the resources it needs to complete a thorough investigation, already underway, into whether or not current inspectors are ensuring that the most rigorous standards for certification are honored when determining if a product may bear the ``USDA Organic'' label. In addition, the Inspector General needs sufficient resources to investigate whether or not non-organic substances inappropriately remain allowed in small amounts in USDA certified products after organic alternatives have been discovered; as the Washington Post reported last week, since the list of allowable non-organic substances was created in 2002, the number of such non-organic substances has ballooned from 77 to 245, and only one such substance has been removed. As noted in the Washington Post article, the program's lax standards are undermining the program and the law, prompting the author of the law, Senator Leahy, to state pointedly that ``it will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted . . . if we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished.'' Indeed, the explosive growth of the industry itself requires us to increase our vigilance accordingly. Therefore, I thank and commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her support and leadership on this issue, and for including my amendment in the bill. This bill funds many important nutritional and agricultural programs, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3081, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. In addition to providing for operations at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the bill includes important funding for broader diplomatic and development efforts around the world. It provides needed assistance for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; fulfills the U.S. commitment to assist the security of our ally Israel; and maintains vital support for peacekeeping missions in places like Darfur, Haiti, Lebanon, and Somalia. I applaud the amendment by Chairwoman Lowey to restrict military assistance to the Government of Sri Lanka. As the process of rebuilding from that nation's long conflict begins, the United States must ensure that the Sri Lankan Government protects the rights of all its citizens and allows humanitarian assistance to reach all those in need. Other important provisions in H.R. 3081 will advance global health, including the fights against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The bill makes available $1 billion each for programs that will improve access to basic education worldwide and provide for global food security and agricultural development. I am pleased that H.R. 3081 provides increased funding to expand the Peace Corps; enhance educational and cultural exchanges; and strengthen microfinance programs that help the world's poorest people, especially women, lift themselves out of poverty. This is a good bill that will help our Nation accomplish many important tasks. However, there is one area that I believe deserves greater attention, and that role is that science should play in American diplomacy and foreign aid. The fundamental role of science and technology in international development has long been recognized, but over time we have dismantled our staffing and support structure in this area. We must refurbish the science and technology workforce at USAID so that we can effectively address global challenges like health, poverty, environmental hazards, and food security. U.S. scientists, working alongside their foreign counterparts, can help other countries build the indigenous institutions and expertise that will create sustainable, domestic solutions to pressing issues. At the same time, these efforts generate respect and affinity around the world for the United States, one of the many underappreciated benefits that will accrue from more fully integrating science and scientists into our diplomatic efforts. H.R. 3081 makes important strides toward rebuilding our diplomatic capacity, but as part of that effort, we should focus on enhancing the scientific expertise and capacity at the State Department. The U.S. also should support more robust scientist exchange programs, which foster lasting ties between individuals and allow societies to share discoveries that advance our collective knowledge. Similarly, international research facilities provide a setting to generate productive science while advancing cultural understanding and building bridges between nations. One example is the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East. Known as ``SESAME,'' this project is being completed in Jordan under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The facility will bring together Arabs, Israelis, and other scientists from the region to work cooperatively on dozens of simultaneous experiments in fields ranging from biological and medical sciences to archaeology. The U.S. should vigorously support and participate in these types of initiatives. We have much to offer the rest of the world with respect to science and technology, but we also have much to learn and much to gain by scientific engagement. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress to strengthen our international efforts and diplomatic capability in these areas.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of our nation's small businesses and for the passage of H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act of 2009. Much of the economic success that we enjoy as a nation is the result of innovation and development by America's small business community. Small businesses employ more than half of all workers in the private sector and generate 60 to 80 percent of new jobs in this country. High- tech small businesses form a growing part of our national economy, particularly in New Jersey. According to the National Science Foundation, New Jersey ranks in the top five among states in both the number of high-tech businesses and the size of the workforce employed by those businesses. Restoring our economic growth will require focusing on this strength and improving it. To continue our innovation advantage, we must ensure that these high- tech small businesses have a steady stream of new ideas, which are generated by translating basic scientific research into commercial products. A recent analysis by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that 77 percent of the award-winning innovative technologies in 2006 came about because of ideas generated from federally funded scientific research. We must give our small businesses the necessary tools to continue to translate this research into innovative technologies and products. The legislation before us today would help close this gap by expanding and improving two of the SBA's most successful programs: the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program. The SBIR program has proven to be a successful way to advance technological innovation, delivering more than 55,000 patents and hundreds of valuable innovations in agriculture, defense, energy, health sciences, homeland security, space, transportation, and other fields. The program is a unique collaboration, allowing government agencies to fund projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities for small businesses. SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher education research institutions in federally-funded research and development, while fostering competition, productivity, and economic growth. I support this program so that it will continue to provide a vital source of funding to establish and grow innovative small businesses. Our nation's innovation infrastructure, and its underlying science and technology assets, lead the world across a wide range of measures. However, our successes have encouraged other countries to follow our example and boost their innovation infrastructures. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to boost innovation through research and support high tech companies that will provide the innovation and jobs of the 21st Century. The legislation before us today will give these high-tech small businesses the tools that they need to succeed. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlelady for her work on the bill and thank her for supporting my amendment to protect the USDA's organic standards and labels and to enter into a colloquy now. We must ensure that the Department of Agriculture's Inspector General has the resources to complete a thorough investigation, already underway, into whether current inspectors are upholding the most rigorous standards for organic certification and receiving adequate oversight. The Inspector General also needs resources to investigate whether nonorganic substances inappropriately remain in USDA-certified products. The number of nonorganic substances has ballooned from 77 in 2002 to 245 today, and only one has been removed. If we want the organic label to mean something, then there must be strong standards for organic certification and we must uphold them.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2996, the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act. This bill provides the much needed funding to protect and preserve our natural resources for future generations. I applaud the Chairman for providing robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in this legislation. I have long been a supporter and a leader in Congress for increasing the funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Since its creation in 1965, LWCF has provided funding to four federal agencies including the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service to acquire public lands. In July of 1999 during my first term in Congress, I secured passage of a key amendment to resurrect the state-side portion of LWCF, providing funding for that program for the first time in five years. To date, the stateside program has preserved over 73,000 acres of land in my home state of New Jersey. I strongly support the Manager's amendment which would increase the funding for the state-side matching grants to $40 million, which is over double the amount that it received in Fiscal Year 2009. I strongly oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, that would strip funding from the state side portion of the LWCF. This amendment would be detrimental to the ability of states to preserve at risk open space and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chair. Energy, climate and environment are principal subjects that I have spoken about and worked on for decades, before and since I first came to Congress and to work on these issues, I believe, is a principal reason my constituents sent me to Congress. I admire the chairman's skill in assembling a bill, and I fully support the chairman's efforts to reduce the release of greenhouse gases. However, I'm deeply concerned that the bill does not include the research funding necessary to reach the target of 80 percent emission reduction set in the bill. We must transform the way we produce and use energy. We cannot meet this goal with today's technologies; and this bill, as written, will not provide the billions of dollars needed to fund and develop the future technologies. So I'm here to ask the chairman of the committee if I may have his assurance that he will work with me to increase the amount of research and development funding in this bill and other legislation that we need in order to reduce our reliance on foreign fuels and to slow the rate of growth of climate change.

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. For years, the consensus in the scientific community has been that the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is altering the Earth's climate in ways that are expensive and deadly. This is one of the principle subjects I have spoken about and worked on for decades-- before and since I first ran for office--and it is one of the reasons, I believe that my constituents sent me to Congress. Today the House of Representatives at last is taking sweeping action to cap greenhouse gas emissions, promote the production of renewable energy, and make our homes, cars, and businesses more energy efficient. This legislation would require that we reduce our carbon emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. It would implement a Renewable Electricity Standard that would require electric utilities to provide 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. It would make historic investments new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and research and development. These provisions would help to slow the rate of global warming and preserve our environment for future generations. Further, a recent report from the Center for American Progress estimates that these provisions would help to create 1.7 million new, high skilled clean energy jobs over the next decade. Opponents of this bill have argued that it would cost American families over $500 a year in additional energy costs. While it is true that there would be increases in the cost of energy, this bill would return almost 50 percent of the proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction to consumers. In my home state of New Jersey, families who currently pay $100 on their monthly energy bill would see their bill increase by less than $3 a month. If you include the savings that would come through the energy efficiency provisions in this legislation American families could save $4,000 by 2030 on their energy bills. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, in New Jersey climate change has caused temperatures to be 4 degrees warmer than they were in 1970. Over the past century precipitation has increased by 5 percent and severe weather incidents have increased by 12-20 percent, and sea level along our coast is increasing .14 inches a year. It is worth devoting some money and effort to slow the devastating climate change is having on our state. I am pleased that several provisions that I wrote were included in this bill. I worked with Rep. George Miller and Rep. Jerry McNerney authorize the WaterSense program that would help consumers identify water efficient products. Water efficiency saves energy by reducing the amount of energy used to heat, transport, and clean water. The savings are substantial and real. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, if only one out of every 100 American homes retrofitted their homes with water-efficient fixtures, we would save 100 GWh of electricity, enough energy to power more than 9,000 homes for an entire year, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80,000 tons. Rep. Jared Polis and I wrote a provision that would require the Departments of Energy, Labor and Education to compile an online database for a renewable energy curriculum that would be easily accessible to community colleges, vocational schools and universities looking to create training programs but lacking local or technical expertise. The transformation to a clean energy future will require a trained workforce and our amendment would ensure that these communities, whether in rural Wyoming or urban Pittsburg, have easy access to green jobs training in new energy and new manufacturing sectors so they can prosper in a new energy economy. I worked with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, and Rep. Brian Baird to include a provision that would allow the Secretary of Energy to create a research program to study the role that human behavior will play in energy consumption and climate change. Changing consumer behavior offers a promising opportunity to promote energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however there is still much to be learned about the forces that drive consumer actions. As a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, I worked to make sure that sufficient funding from the cap and trade auction would be used for domestic and international adaptation. Funding allocated under this provision would help to ensure the protection, restoration, and conservation of natural resources and enable them to become more resilient, adapt to and withstand the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification. It will require the study of how wildlife corridors will change as climate change affects migration patterns and identify the steps to minimize the effects of climate change on migratory species. It would be used to protect the public health from the effects of climate change. Internationally, it would be used to prevent the tropical deforestation that is adding billions of tons of carbon to our atmosphere. I remain deeply concerned that this bill does not include the necessary research and development funding that is needed to reach the 80 percent reduction target set in H.R. 2425. We will not be able to meet this goal with today's technologies, and as written, the bill does not provide the billions of dollars a year that will be needed to develop them. This is not a small or parochial concern. If Americans and others around the world are to embrace a transformation in the way we use and produce energy, they must know that our effort includes the engine to drive the innovation for that transformation. Without a very robust research effort--many billions of dollars--the vision of transformation will be a mirage and the public will know it. I have been assured by Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, Speaker Pelosi, members of the Administration and members of the Senate that they understand this shortcoming and that they will work with me to increase the research funding to drive the innovation we need to transform the way we produce and use energy. Ultimately, I support this bill because doing nothing is not an option. If we continue on the same path the U.S. Global Change Research Program estimates that average global temperatures will increase 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, causing among other effects a rise in sea level of 3 to 4 feet, completely flooding low lying areas like the Everglades and Cape Canaveral or Cape May. By passing this legislation we can slow the rate of climate change, we can create millions of new jobs, save consumers money through energy efficiency, and end our reliance on foreign fossil fuels. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

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

Mr. HOLT. I particularly want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, our friend, Mr. Skelton, for his support of this amendment. It is identical to the amendment passed by the House during consideration of the 2009 Defense Authorization last year with the exception of some changes in the findings which I think strengthen the case for this amendment. A similar intelligence-focused, CIA-focused detainee video recording provision was included in the fiscal year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act that was voted out of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last week. Mr. Chairman, the amendment's purpose is simple. It is to improve the intelligence operations of our Armed Forces by ensuring the video recording of each strategic interrogation of any person who is in the control or detention of the Department of Defense. Let me be clear: this amendment does not impede combat operations. The bill explicitly states that troops in the field in contact with the enemy shall not be required to videotape or otherwise record tactical questioning. It does require the Secretary of Defense to promulgate and provide to the Congress guidelines under which video recording of detainees shall be done. It does require that the recordings be properly classified and maintained securely just as any foreign intelligence information should be. It does require that the recordings be maintained for an appropriate length of time. What is the reason for this amendment? Because multiple studies have documented the benefits of video recording or electronically recording interrogations. Law enforcement organizations across the United States routinely use the practice both to protect the person being interrogated and the officer conducting the interrogations. It is the standard of best practice. Some U.S. attorneys are on record as favoring this requirement for the FBI. And the Customs and Border Patrol does routinely videotape or electronically record key interactions and interrogations with those in their custody. Video recording is the standard within the United States for interrogations of all types in all agencies and for prosecutors. Well, what about the Department of Defense? Is it appropriate there? Earlier this year a task force convened by Secretary of Defense Gates to review our detainee policies issued its report. This is known as the ``Walsh Report.'' The report was unequivocal. It said: ``We endorse the use of video recording in all camps and for all interrogations. The use of video recording to confirm humane treatment could be an important enabler for detainee operations. Just as internal controls provide standardization, the use of video recordings provides the capability to monitor performance and to maintain accountability.'' But more than this, more than maintaining the standards for behavior in the interrogation room, it strengthens our ability to collect intelligence and understand what's going on. The amendment would strengthen previous laws passed by Congress regarding the treatment of detainees, and it would maximize our intelligence collections from such interrogations. In fact, the origin of this amendment came from my questioning of interrogators. When I asked how they get maximum information of nuances of language, languages that the interrogators might not have real fluency with. Who reviews the tapes? I said. And they said, There are no tapes. By having tapes, we can get the maximum benefit of the interrogation. This amendment is endorsed by major human rights organizations. It's been certified by CBO not to result in additional spending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield, if he wishes, such time as he may consume to the distinguished Chairman.