Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, because it fails to support our troops serving overseas. Like the defense authorization bill the House passed last month, the bill uses a budget gimmick to circumvent funding caps passed into law on a bipartisan basis, and by doing so it not only undermines the budget process, it puts our troops at risk. The bill diverts $16 billion from what our military says is needed to fund our military forces engaged in operations around the globe to purchase ships, planes, end strength, and other items our military didn't request. Consequently, troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will run out of funds half way through the year and would then rely on Congress passing an emergency supplemental to fill the funding gap. We shouldn't gamble with the troops we send off to battle. It is irresponsible and reckless. They deserve predictable support for the entire year as they execute their missions, particularly in view of the dangers they face. Going forward, I am committed to work with my colleagues to eliminate this funding gimmick to ensure our troops are supported for the full year. We count on these selfless men and women who volunteer to serve in uniform to keep us safe each and every day. They only count on us to provide them the resources they need to do their jobs. That is the least we can do.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 5325, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017. Although I support most of the programs and services this bill helps to fund including the Capitol Police, the independent budgetary and economic analysis of the Congressional Budget Office and the nonpartisan oversight work of the Government Accountability Office, as well as the language to stop this year's COLA for Congress, I must oppose the bill on the grounds that it has become a vehicle for the House Majority to advance an ideological agenda. Funding in the bill has been used to finance the Benghazi Committee, to defend the misnamed ``Defense of Marriage Act,'' to sue the President over the Affordable Care Act and to fund the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood. Now the Majority wants to use this appropriations bill to order the Library of Congress to use politically charged terminology to refer to classes of people in the United States. It is unfortunate that the Majority has chosen to play politics with this appropriations bill instead of devoting the time to shaping policies that actually serve the country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the two resolutions brought to the floor today, H. Con. Res. 89 and H. Con. Res. 112. These resolutions are a time-wasting distraction from the real work that this Congress should be doing--finding ways to invest in America, grow paychecks and create good jobs for the middle class and those struggling to get by. The oil fee and carbon tax are two proposals to address the problem of climate change and, in the case of the oil fee, provide needed funds for infrastructure reform. While we can debate the merits of these particular approaches, at least they are efforts to take on real challenges facing our country and the world. Instead, the majority simply wants to stick their heads in the sand and wish these challenges away. That may appease their Trump Tea Party base, but it represents a total lack of leadership. And make no mistake, inaction on climate change does not just risk our future--it is costing us today. The increase in extreme weather events is hitting Americans in the pocketbook, through higher insurance rates and home repair costs, and this will only get worse from our failure to act. The greater harm is through the missed opportunity to create high-paying jobs for American workers. We can be the world's green-economy leader, supporting millions of new jobs in research and manufacturing in the process, but it requires Congress to act. Republicans would rather we sit on the sidelines while other countries seek the mantle of climate-change leader, and those countries reap the benefit of high-paying technology jobs that will come with it. Now, we should have a discussion on the best ways to boost our economy by combatting climate change, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and finding ways to properly invest in our nation's infrastructure. In that vein, I've introduced the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, a cap-and-dividend plan that would help us combat climate change and support economic growth and a thriving middle class. It boosts the purchasing power of families in Maryland and across the country while achieving the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions necessary to address the economic and health risks of climate change, using a market-based approach. Similarly, last year I introduced the GROW AMERICA Act, a bill which would boost infrastructure spending and help pay for it by closing the egregious inversions loophole which allows corporations to shift their tax obligations onto hard-working Americans just by changing their mailing address. My Democratic colleagues have many other thoughtful ideas on how we can address these important issues. But today's resolutions are not a thoughtful discussion on addressing climate change or funding our infrastructure--in the text of these resolutions, the terms ``climate change'' and ``infrastructure'' are nowhere to be seen. In fact, these resolutions are a waste of time meant to appease the Trump Tea Party base. The American people need us to do our job, so let's get to the real work of creating broadly shared prosperity. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4889. While I agree with the underlying goal of this bill, in its current form it does not provide enough privacy protections. The ability to quickly locate potential victims in an emergency is very important but we should also eliminate the potential for abuse. I was disappointed that Congressional Republicans refused to accept common sense proposals that would have allowed us to obtain the benefit of the proposal without opening the door to abuse or violations of Constitutional rights. I hope in the coming months we can pass the bill with adequate provisions.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the package of opioid bills considered by the House this week, which is a comprehensive approach that aims to address the country's opioid crisis. America is experiencing an opioid addiction epidemic that is striking people of all incomes, races, and backgrounds. Every day, 78 Americans die from an opioid overdose--this is unacceptable. The urgency of this public health epidemic is clear and this legislation is an important first step to addressing this crisis. This package includes a number of important measures, including a provision to expand the availability of nalaxone and other overdose reversal drugs. It also encourages criminal justice agencies to integrate and sustain Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) programs. Another notable provision creates an inter-agency task force that encourages collaboration among the many agencies that come in contact with addicts--pertaining to criminal justice, mental health, substance abuse, and veteran affairs--and promotes a holistic approach to dealing with the crisis. While the package includes these important bipartisan provisions, I am deeply concerned that Congressional Republicans refused to allow a vote on a provision to provide the resources necessary to support this new strategy. Congressman Joe Courtney offered an amendment to provide an additional $600 million, which is also the President's request, in emergency funds. Sadly, it was rejected by all voting House Republicans from being considered on the floor. The funding would provide necessary resources to meaningfully address the increasing tragedy of this crisis. Our states and districts urgently need funding now. Despite these shortcomings, I support this legislation as a step in the right direction. In the coming weeks, I urge Republicans to work on a bipartisan basis to provide the emergency funding necessary to fully confront this crisis.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4974, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 (MilCon). MilCon funds military construction projects for the Department of Defense and health care and other important services for the country's veterans at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This is a vital piece of legislation that we must get right so that our veterans get the benefits they earned and deserve and that our military has the facilities they need. Unfortunately, the bill has a major shortcoming--it cuts $1.5 billion below the President's request for the VA, including more than $1.2 billion from the Veterans Health Administration. The VA serves over forty-three million Americans a year and over a billion dollar in cuts will make it harder for the VA to provide for our veterans. It is for this reason I cannot support the bill. Over the years, the VA has faced a number of challenges. The VA faced funding shortfalls and was unprepared to meet the demands of a new generation of returning veterans. Access to quality health care and veterans' benefits has been an ongoing challenge for the VA, highlighted by the claims backlog and by veterans waiting long periods for health care appointments. However, these challenges are made more difficult to overcome when Congress provides insufficient funds to the VA or shuts down the government, as it did in 2013--which led to furloughs at the VA. Many of my constituents are active duty or veterans who receive services through the VA and they deserve a fully funded VA that can quickly and accurately manage their claims. We simply must do better. As the Ranking Member on the House Budget Committee I proposed budgets that reversed sequestration for not just defense programs, but also for nondefense programs because they include important priorities like veterans' health care. I also proposed extending advance appropriations for all of VA's discretionary programs so that veterans' programs are insulated from the possibility of future government shutdowns. I am going to continue to fight to ensure that the VA gets the resources it needs to provide for the nation's veterans and I am hopeful that more funding will be provided to the VA when this bill returns from conference

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 5243, the Zika Response Appropriations Act of 2016. It is a tepid response to an alarming public health crisis, only providing a small fraction of the amount requested by President Obama and public health experts. The Zika virus poses a severe threat to Americans, especially pregnant women. It has been linked to the birth defect microcephaly, and even death. As we approach the summer months, the prevalence of mosquitoes in our backyards will increase, and more and more Americans will become exposed to the virus. We must provide sufficient emergency funding to contain the spread and develop a vaccine for this virus. Unfortunately, today's bill would only provide approximately $622 million to fight Zika, less than one-third of what public health experts like those at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say is needed. Making matters worse, this bill offsets the cost of fighting Zika by taking vital resources away from addressing other public health crises. Additionally, House Republicans have continued their attack on women's access to health care in this bill by incorporating restrictions on abortion coverage. It is shameful that anti-choice Members have used the urgency of the Zika virus to limit access to a woman's constitutionally affirmed right to choose. It is dangerous to pretend that Congress has addressed this crisis. That illusion creates a false sense of comfort. For these reasons I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and demand appropriate funding to guard Americans from this public health crisis.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, because it fails to support our troops serving overseas. The House Armed Services Committee reported a bill that uses a budget gimmick to circumvent funding caps Congress passed into law on a bipartisan basis, and by doing so it not only undermines the budget process, it puts our troops at risk. The bill cuts $18 billion from what our military commanders say is needed to support our troops overseas, and shifts those funds into the base defense budget to purchase billions of dollars of weapon systems the Defense Department did not even request. Consequently, the bill provides only enough funding for the troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq through April, 2017. This would then force Congress to pass an emergency supplemental to ensure that troops who are serving in harm's way have the resources they need for the remainder of the year. We shouldn't gamble with the troops we send off to battle. They deserve predictable support for the entire year as they execute their missions, particularly in view of the dangers they face. Representative Ellison offered an amendment to undo part of this gimmick. His amendment cuts $9.4 billion of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds the bill shifted to procurement for weapons DoD didn't ask for and puts it back into operations and maintenance, where DoD requested it for overseas operations. I supported the amendment because it puts the troops first. It gives them the certainty they need while they carry out their missions. It is also what our military commanders say they need. Unfortunately, that amendment did not pass. As the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, I also have worked hard to defend the integrity of the budget process and to end the abuse of the OCO designation to circumvent budget caps. I offered a bipartisan amendment with Representative Mulvaney that attempts to help reduce this abuse in the future. The amendment codifies criteria developed by OMB to clarify when military spending should be designated as contingency operations. To provide the necessary resources for a strong military and vital domestic investments, it is imperative our budget process be transparent and deliberative. Using budget gimmicks perpetuates bad decisions, increases debt by obfuscating spending, and in this case, puts the troops at risk. This NDAA once again abdicates Congressional responsibility to revise and update the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The 2001 AUMF has been used to conduct a broad range of military operations across the world for the past fifteen years. Rather than act to narrowly target that authority to meet our current operational and national security requirements, Congress has continued to provide the Executive with a blank check to deploy American ground troops in many places in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe. Representative Lee offered an amendment to force Congress to meet its constitutional obligations regarding its war powers. While I do not believe we should totally eliminate all authorities under the 2001 AUMF, I do believe we need to dramatically reduce its scope and end the grant of blank check authority to the Executive. The NDAA should focus only on soldiers and their needs. However, Republicans have used it as a vehicle to insert inflammatory and non- germane amendments. It includes an amendment that reverses the President's Executive Order that prevents federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees. It removes environmental protections, impedes development of alternative fuel sources to decrease our dependence on foreign fuel, and it prevents the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I applaud certain measures such as the 2.1 percent pay raise for armed services, research to combat the opioid epidemic that is impacting our veterans, increased funding to combat veteran homelessness, and expanding the parental leave policy for active duty service members. I remain committed to fighting for these important issues but I cannot support the unacceptable budget gimmicks and policy riders in the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I vote nay.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the weeks of April 18th and April 25th, I was unavoidably detained and missed several votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 155, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 156, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 157, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 158, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 159, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 160, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 161, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 162, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 163, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 164, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 165, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 166, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 167, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 168, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 169, ``yes'' on Roll Call No. 170, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 171, ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 172, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 173, and ``no'' on Roll Call No. 174.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in America today, there is a population that has gone unrecognized. The conversation on autism has long ignored Autistic adults. For this reason, I rise to recognize April 21 to be noted as ``Autism after 21 Day''--representing the age when services for children end and services for adulthood begins. In declaring this day, we draw attention to the fact that there are many adults that need to have a country aware of their gifts and challenges. This is a step in helping to create a brighter future for these adults and the people who care about them. I am proud to have organizations in my Congressional district that work hard to address these needs. In conjunction with their work and the needs of those that are adults on the Autism Spectrum, we are calling for ``Autism after 21 Day'' to acknowledge the many people who are navigating adulthood and wanting to reach their full potential. With our help, that journey may not be as lonely and isolated; rather, the individuals can be recognized as an important part of our community. Twenty-six years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Autistic adults deserve access to the goals set by the ADA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2666 the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that the FCC should not have the authority to establish monthly rates for customers but I cannot vote in favor of this bill. Republicans crafted a poorly written and overly broad bill that threatens consumer protections. This is not the first time this Republican majority Congress has introduced legislation that is really a guise to strip administrative authority from agencies and to weaken consumer protection laws. I will continue to fight efforts to erode consumer rights and protections.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 2016, I was unavoidably detained and missed two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 153 and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 154.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on April 13, 2016, I was unavoidably detained and missed four votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 141, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 142, ``no'' on Roll Call No. 143, and ``no'' on Roll Call No. 144.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day to honor Mr. Art Ping Lee on his outstanding contributions to Chinese communities throughout the United States and his leadership in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Mr. Lee immigrated to the United States from the Guangdong Province of the Republic of China in 1936. He saw the toll that World War II took on Chinese citizens in the United States who were prevented from being reunited with their families due to U.S. immigration laws and immigrant quota restrictions. As a founding member of the National Chinese Welfare Council in 1957, he campaigned vigorously for the lifting of limitations on immigration quotas. As a result, 40,000 Chinese immigrants were allowed to enter the U.S. every year. Mr. Lee has also worked tirelessly to enhance and strengthen the important relationship between the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Mr. Lee, who celebrates his 102nd birthday this year, continues to be an active member of the community. He is a Senior Advisor to the Overseas Community Affairs Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is a cultural, educational, economic and informational exchange organization between Taiwan and overseas communities. He is also an Honorary Elder of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of Washington, DC and an Honorary Elder to The Lee Family Association in the United States. Mr. Lee has been recognized for his work as the recipient of the Kuomintang Cathy Medal and the Hua Kuang Medal, First Class, which is awarded by the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to Chinese who have made special contributions in overseas Chinese affairs. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Art Ping Lee on his service to Chinese communities across the United States. His efforts have made a difference to countless people and I am grateful to him for his service to others.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 2745 or the SMARTER Act. This bill is another delay tactic that stops us from the meaningful work of passing a budget. Too many bills that have come out of the Judiciary Committee this year are designed to erode consumer rights and roll back established judicial precedent. We should be considering and debating meaningful bills to address criminal justice reform and common sense gun safety. Instead, we are here voting to fix a problem that does not exist and does not need our attention. A Politico article from two days ago was titled ``Congress setting a low bar for doing nothing.'' My Democratic colleagues and I have bills and agendas that we would like to bring to the floor to address real problems facing real Americans. This bill is not smart. It is a timewaster and I hope after spring recess we can come back to a robust agenda and work on behalf of the American people.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Thomas S. Kahn, a long- tenured staffer who is retiring from federal service after 32 years of dedicated, trusted work for the House of Representatives. He has spent the last 19 of those years as the Staff Director for the House Budget Committee Democratic staff, and Democrats here in the House have come to rely on Tom's work on the ins and outs of federal budgeting. We will miss his experience and insight, along with his good humor and friendship. Tom is a loyal Boston Red Sox fan from Massachusetts but started and ended his career on Capitol Hill with Members from the Maryland delegation. Tom came to Capitol Hill as legislative assistant to then- Representative Barbara Mikulski. After time out to earn his law degree from Georgetown University and a brief foray into the private sector, Tom returned to Congress to begin his long service to Representative John Spratt as legislative counsel. Tom served Mr. Spratt throughout the remainder of Mr. Spratt's tenure in Congress, working on both the Government Operations Committee and then later becoming Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the House Budget Committee in 1997. I was pleased when he agreed to stay on as Staff Director when I joined the Budget Committee as Ranking Member. This year marks Tom's 19th year of service to the Committee as Staff Director, and during that time he has been instrumental in advancing major legislation, including the 1997 budget agreement with President Clinton that led to the first budget surplus in 30 years. He also played a pivotal role in crafting the 2010 budget resolution which paved the way for passage of the Affordable Care Act. Those of us who have had the pleasure of knowing Tom inevitably also know about the lights of his life: his sons, Benjamin and Daniel-- regularly displayed in photos on Tom's tie--and his accomplished wife, Susana Sanchez. If Tom isn't talking about the budget, he's likely conversing about his family. While Tom is retiring from federal service, he will maintain his dedication to public service in his new role leading government affairs for the American Federation of Government Employees. I thank Tom for his service to our nation and the difference he will continue to make in fighting for federal employees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3716, the Ensuring Removal of Terminated Providers from Medicaid and CHIP Act, which would improve the integrity of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and expand access to patients. Today's bipartisan bill would strengthen our federal and State healthcare systems by ensuring patients are protected from fraudulent health providers that have been terminated from participating in Medicaid or CHIP. If a bad actor is terminated from CHIP due to fraudulent practices in one state, this legislation guarantees that provider is prohibited from crossing state lines and opening a practice elsewhere. This fraud is unacceptable and jeopardizes not only patients but States' health programs to waste and abuse. Additionally, H.R. 3716 would create a patient friendly electronic provider database for Medicaid beneficiaries. The database would make it easier for patients to know and choose health care options that work best for them. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this commonsense legislation, which builds on our health care system, would reduce direct spending by $28 million over the next ten years. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my condolences and prayers to the family of Prince George's Police Officer Jacai Colson, who died in the line of duty last Sunday just before his 29th birthday. The senseless, callous, and unprovoked death of Officer Colson reminds us that our men in blue risk their lives every day for our safety. In his four years of service on the force, Officer Colson was dedicated to his community. His friends and family describe him as a natural leader with an infectious smile who followed in his grandfather's footsteps to become a police officer. Officer Colson served as an undercover narcotics officer and was placed frequently in high risk situations-- risks that he took because he knew he was making a difference. Our community lost a true hero who every day put his life at risk for the rest of us. His loss is a tragedy for his family, his fellow officers, and our State. I offer my deep condolences to all who knew Officer Colson in this time of grief.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call upon the people of our nation to re-double the effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment--an amendment to make real the promise of equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for women. Given the continuous assaults on women's health care and reproductive rights and the persistent wage gap, there is no better time for this Amendment to become enshrined in our constitution. This is long overdue and it is shameful that we continue to be three states short of ratification. The Constitution must guarantee and protect women's rights. In recognition of Women's History Month, I encourage my colleagues to take up this issue and fight for the Equal Rights Amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3293, the so-called Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, a bill that would actually hinder the National Science Foundation's (NSF) ability to meet the dynamic demands of science and provide resources across all scientific disciplines without political manipulations. This bill is simply another in a line of Republican efforts to politicize science and jeopardize discovery and innovation. The NSF engages in remarkable, ground-breaking work. We must continue to support this organization and ensure that America remains a world- wide leader in scientific advances. To that end, I cosponsored a number of amendments with my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, that would allow NSF scientists to further our understanding of climate and environmental science. Unfortunately my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have displayed such open hostility towards climate science and research that they won't allow a vote on these amendments. While I believe it's important that the NSF hold itself accountable regarding the research it funds, politicizing scientific research is shortsighted and can damage our ability to compete in the world economy. H.R. 3293 would interfere with ongoing efforts at NSF to better quantify and communicate the value of the research it funds. Mr. Chair, I am also concerned that this legislation will have a chilling effect on many of the scientists at NSF and throughout our scientific community. This bill would force scientists to second-guess their research based on political whims and require them to justify all their actions according to short-term returns, stifling high-risk, high-reward research and innovation across all fields. We must not squelch creativity, critical thinking, and the open exchange of ideas. Federal agencies like NIH and NOAA are headquartered in my district and I represent countless federally funded scientists who are advancing knowledge, discovering cures, and developing innovative technologies. I am committed to ensuring that the NSF and all of our research agencies have the resources they need without being subject to superfluous political tests. The valuable work done by our scientists and researchers at NSF and other institutions not only leads to the development of new innovations, but also enables our Nation to attract and retain the top research talent in the world. In order to continue to compete, we need sustained investments free from political interference. I strongly oppose this bill and any other efforts to needlessly politicize scientific research.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act and am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, which will strengthen public notification requirements in the event of lead contamination. The situation in Flint is unacceptable--it is a violation of the right to clean water and a breakdown of the basic responsibility of government to its citizens. And it was completely preventable--we know the damaging impacts of lead and we know how to protect people from lead poisoning. We need an aggressive response, both for the people in Flint and for every community that faces lead exposure. Today's bill is just a first step to address this problem by ensuring that when contamination occurs, communities will be informed of what is happening and what will be done to fix it. We should follow this action with support for the Flint community and robust funding for lead poisoning prevention and clean water programs. I look forward to our continued work to protect children and communities from the dangers of lead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The only thing historic about this vote today is it probably breaks the record for the number of times a Congress has voted to try to overturn existing law that has been twice upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Yes, Mr. Speaker, here we go again and again and again. How fitting it is that we are here, on Groundhog Day, for the 63rd vote in the House of Representatives to overturn the Affordable Care Act. And make no mistake. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan entity that analyzes bills, has told us and told the American people that, in overturning the Affordable Care Act, you will eliminate affordable health care for 22 million Americans. So this is a historically callous action that, in 1 day, our colleagues are proposing that we would deny affordable health care to 22 million Americans. It is also the 12th vote this House has taken to attack women's health care and defund Planned Parenthood. You know, the American people have got to be scratching their heads. They were told that, with a new Speaker, in the new year, 2016, we would actually begin to address the real challenges facing this country and do some serious work. Yet, the very first action taken here on this House floor in 2016 with the new Speaker was to again try to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. And, yes, that legislation went through the Senate and the House. It went to the President's desk, and the President vetoed it. Make no mistake. We will not overturn the President's veto today. This is a futile gesture. It is part of an obsession to try to undo affordable care for 22 million Americans, and it is not going to happen. Now, what has happened since the last vote we had here to attack women's health programs and defund Planned Parenthood? We have had a decision by a court in Texas. Here were the headlines that came out of that court decision: ``Vindication for Planned Parenthood'' and ``Texas grand jury clears Planned Parenthood, indicts its accusers.'' I have to say, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues have a lot of gall to bring this to the floor after that Texas court decision. You know, they went into that Texas court decision, and the Harris County District Attorney said at the outset of their investigation into Planned Parenthood: We must go where the evidence leads us. It began as an investigation into Planned Parenthood, just as we have had a series of witch-hunt investigations here in the House, where the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said months ago that there was no evidence that Planned Parenthood had committed any wrongdoing. Now we have a Texas court not only vindicating Planned Parenthood, but indicting their accusers. Mr. Speaker, I tell you, this does take a lot of gall to come back here after that and go after women's health programs not for the first time, not for the second time. This is now the 11th time. This will be the 11th time this House has wasted taxpayer time and money trying to overturn women's health programs and the 63rd time it has wasted taxpayer time and money trying to strip away affordable health care to 22 million Americans by undoing the Affordable Care Act. So, yes, this is a shamefully historic day. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think it probably breaks all the records in wasting taxpayer time and money where, in a really cruel way, if we actually did overturn the President's veto, 22 million Americans would be denied access to health care. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto. Don't take away health care to 22 million Americans, and don't continue this attack on women's health. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary who is focused on an evidence-based approach to all of these issues.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).