Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the President is going to mull over this decision for very long. He is going to veto this because the President doesn't want to deny 22 million Americans access to affordable care, which is exactly what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells us is what this will do, and he doesn't want to deny access to health care to millions of women and families. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a friend and colleague and the Democratic whip, who understands that providing health care to 22 million Americans who didn't have it is a good thing.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me expanding access to affordable health care for 22 million Americans who didn't have it is being on the right side of history. I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished member of the panel which, I am sorry to say, was set up as part of a witch hunt against Planned Parenthood, but I am glad she is there.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member on the Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood. She will be there looking after the interests of American women, I am pleased to say.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, yes, that would be important to show that we have a President that doesn't want to eliminate affordable health care for 22 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a sad and shameful way to begin the new year 2016 here in the United States Congress. This bill is entitled Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, the freedom of health insurance companies to once again deny health care to people based on preexisting conditions. It may be a new year, Mr. Speaker, but here we go again. We are in this Congress, on the floor of this House for the 62nd time with this effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and, to add insult to injury, to deny millions of women access to healthcare choices by targeting Planned Parenthood. While the calendar has changed, the Tea Party Republican agenda remains the same. Despite all the pressing issues we face in this country at home and abroad, the only thing and the first thing our Republican colleagues decide to bring to the floor of the House as the most pressing business to start 2016 is to take away access to affordable care from 22 million Americans and deny access to affordable care for millions of American women. That 22 million figure, Mr. Speaker, that is not my figure. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that has looked at this legislation and concluded that, as a result of this bill, 22 million Americans will lose access to their affordable health insurance. It will be the freedom to be uninsured, the freedom to not have any opportunity to have coverage when your family has healthcare needs. Mr. Speaker, if you look at this chart, you can see that the Affordable Care Act has already made a dramatic difference in bringing down the number of uninsured in the United States of America, yet here we are in a new year, and the first act of this Republican Congress will be to turn back the clock and change that figure. I really hope, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues will begin to focus on more important issues in the days ahead. Everybody knows that this will take about a nanosecond for the President of the United States to veto because the President of the United States is not going to allow 22 million Americans to lose their access to affordable health insurance, and the President is not going to allow millions of Americans and millions of American women to lose access to reproductive choice and a range of healthcare options here in the United States. It is disturbing, shameful, and sad that this is the way we are starting the new year. I hope we get on to more important business, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With all due respect to Mr. Upton and putting aside the merits of this bill, this is the 62nd time we are voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We have never seen a vote in this House on any kind of so-called substitute to the Affordable Care Act. Our Republican colleagues have been full of talk, and we haven't seen any action. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone listens carefully when our colleagues say that it will save money over the next 10 years, because the Congressional Budget Office says this will actually lose the taxpayer money over the longer term. We all hope to live and have our children live in the longer term. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. While this is far from a perfect bill, I believe it represents the best way forward to keep the government open and advance many important priorities that help Maryland get ahead. I thank Ranking Members Mikulski and Lowey and the Democratic negotiators for their work to protect critical priorities. I was pleased to help lead efforts to lift sequester caps, which has allowed us to make needed investment to support jobs and the economy. The Purple Line, WMATA, and efforts to ensure a clean Chesapeake Bay are all supported. The National Institutes of Health will see its most significant funding boost in many years. Education programs like Head Start, Title I, and special education get added resources, and the maximum Pell grant will be increased. And I am pleased that funding for full consolidation of the FBI headquarters was included in the bill-- Team Maryland will keep fighting for it to be relocated to Prince George's County. Important tax provisions were included in the Omnibus. I strongly support extension of the renewable energy tax incentives that will create jobs and aid our transition to a clean energy economy. I am also pleased with the delay in the so-called Cadillac tax, which would otherwise erode health benefits for workers. The Omnibus also reauthorizes the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, finally fulfilling our promise to first responders. Democrats were also able to reject countless corrosive policy riders, including those that would defund Planned Parenthood, block refugees from Syria, pollute our air and water, and erode worker protections. However, some damaging riders remain. I strongly oppose lifting the oil export ban, a Christmas gift to Big Oil. If we are to reduce global carbon emissions, as world leaders pledged to do just last weekend, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep more of them in the ground. Lifting the export ban would do the opposite. Moreover, there is no evidence that American consumers would see any benefit from this policy. The Omnibus also contains a rider to delay action at the IRS to clarify rules surrounding political activities by nonprofits. It delays efforts at the SEC to require corporate disclosure of political spending, a critical step to address the dark money that is influencing our elections. The bill continues the prohibition on gun violence research--known as the Dickey Amendment--that our nation's public health experts strongly oppose. We should be acting with urgency to confront this plague of violence in our nation, and that includes research into preventing injuries and death. Even former Congressman Jay Dickey, who authored the amendment, now opposes it, writing in the Washington Post that ``The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/ AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.'' I am troubled by provisions of a cybersecurity authorization that were packaged into this bill and believe they deserve a fuller hearing than the few days we have had to review this measure. While cyber attacks are a clear threat that must be confronted, we must be vigilant to ensure the protection of civil liberties. While I support the short-term extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I am disappointed that a permanent extension was blocked. LWCF funds are a critical tool for local conservation and the program should not be allowed to lapse, as it did in October for the first time in 51 years. I remain concerned that we are underfunding important investments in the middle class and those working to join the middle class, particularly in light of the enormous, unpaid-for tax package that was just passed by this House. If we can afford tax giveaways to special interests, we can afford a stronger investment in middle class families and those seeking to join the middle class. More must be done to bring families out of poverty, rebuild our infrastructure, and provide opportunity to all. Ultimately, no bill of this size is perfect, and all sides have made concessions to move our country forward. I will continue to fight for the investments we need to make our nation safer, stronger, and more prosperous for all.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise my opposition to H.R. 644 the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. In August, China devalued the renmibi by 4.4 percent which caused a drastic drop in the U.S. stock market. Currency manipulation has real life consequences and affects U.S. jobs and our economy. When China devalues their currency, U.S. exports rise in price and our workers and consumers suffer. Considering the implications of currency manipulation, it is baffling that this bill does not have any Currency CVD provisions but instead inserts legally insignificant terms that are unenforceable. Rather than focus on protecting the American economy and jobs, Republicans have used H.R. 644 to weaken CVD provisions, eliminate text which prohibits imports made by forced or child labor and to insert partisan language to limit future discussions on climate change. What started as a strong bill with wide bipartisan support has degenerated into a weak bill that does not shield our economy from the machinations of foreign governments. And for that Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the PATH Act. This bill does take some good steps, but the failure to close special interest tax loopholes to offset permanent businesses tax provisions leads to a massive loss in federal revenue, and proves once again that Republicans are committed to using accounting gimmicks that would make Enron blush. This bill does include extension of some important enhancements to the EITC, Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit. These are vital pro-work, pro-family income supports, and making the enhancements permanent will help tens of millions of Americans. But, while a permanent extension of these provisions is a positive first step, this bill stopped short of doing more for working families. The child tax credit did not get indexed, so will not rise with the cost of living. Each year, the credit loses value in real dollars, making it harder and harder for low-income families. There is also bipartisan agreement that the EITC for childless workers is far too low, and yet the EITC for childless workers was left out of the PATH Act. I believe not taking these steps today is a missed opportunity. The unpaid-for tax cuts in the PATH Act are also more proof that the Republicans' claims of fiscal discipline are at best gimmicks, and at worst out-right fabrications. Between the PATH Act and the tax provisions in the omnibus spending bill, federal revenue is being reduced by $680 billion over the next ten years. Since my Republican colleagues probably won't say it, I will remind everyone of one key fact--when Republicans passed their budget and claimed that it would balance in ten years, they relied on every single dollar of revenue that is being cut today. Let me repeat that, so it is very clear. Every. Single. Dollar. The Republican budget never really balanced in March, and it certainly does not balance now. Here are some things which the PATH Act does not do: it does not close the loophole giving a lower tax rate to hedge funds managers; it does not close the inversion loophole allowing companies to dodge their taxes just by changing their mailing address; it does not end all the tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry; and it does not touch the 17% of all tax expenditures that go to the top 1% of earners. We could have significantly reduced the lost revenue if we closed these and other special interest tax loopholes, and failure to do so is another missed opportunity. So, next time Republicans come to the floor claiming that they care about fiscal discipline, let's all be reminded of just what happened today--more budget gimmickry that doesn't pass the smell test.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today while I rise in support of H.R. 158 the Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015, I must also note my reservations about some of the provisions in this bill. President Obama in an address to the American people from the Oval Office specifically asked Congress to pass legislation to address any weaknesses within our visa waiver program (VWP) and for a ``stronger screening for travelers to the U.S. without a visa to check if they have travelled to warzones.'' After the terror attacks in Paris, France and San Bernandino, California we must ensure that a law created to encourage travel and cultural exchange is not exploited by those who would do us harm. We must scrutinize and strengthen our VWP and many of the provisions in this bill do just that. I support the provisions in this bill that encourage our allies to share biometric data, improve data sharing on criminal and security concerns and stronger vetting systems This bi-partisan effort is a significant improvement over H.R. 4038, a bill which did nothing but target innocent refugees and exploited xenophobic and unsubstantiated fears. While I support the overall thrust of this bill, I do have some reservations. I am concerned that there are not exceptions for journalists, ministers or aid workers who provide vital services to a needy population. The exclusion for law enforcement or military personnel should be extended to include people who visit Syria, Sudan, or Iraq for completely innocent and humanitarian reasons. We should continue to scrutinize the VWF so that we do not unnecessarily target innocent travelers. I hope our colleagues in the Senate take these reservations into account when they consider this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my friend Brit Kirwan on the occasion of his retirement as Chancellor of the University System of Maryland. Brit is a true Terp, beginning his career as an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, College Park before rising to serve as its President in 1989. For the past 12 years, he has been Chancellor of the University System, where his passion for education and sincere desire to improve the lives and opportunity for Maryland students leaves an indelible mark on our state. He is also a respected national voice on higher education issues, helping to shape policy for greater accessibility, affordability, and quality. It has been a great privilege to know and work with Brit over the years. His leadership has been transformative--opening the doors of higher education to underrepresented communities, establishing new partnerships with federal agencies, local schools, and the private sector, and ensuring that the University System of Maryland is a dynamic place of learning. I have always valued his thoughtful counsel. Many of us were sorry to see Brit leave Maryland in 1998 when he became president of Ohio State University, but we were happy to welcome him back home in 2002. Now, as Brit takes his well-deserved retirement, his legacy is felt by every student who steps on a Maryland campus. I thank him for his many years of service, and wish him all the best.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Every Student Succeeds Act to finally address serious flaws in federal education law and reject the old ``one-size-fits-all'' approach while continuing to hold states and schools accountable for the learning of every child. I thank Ranking Member Bobby Scott for his tireless efforts to support students in underserved communities and close the achievement gap. Today's bill provides needed flexibility in the classroom while maintaining ``guardrails'' to make sure that all students have the opportunity to succeed. It scales back the singular focus on high- stakes testing with a broader and more representative accountability system that will help identify and address gaps. It includes evidence- based interventions for schools where students aren't learning or aren't graduating. And it targets resources to the students who need them most. The bill allows for funding for critical supports, including mental health, drug and violence prevention, and Youth PROMISE plans. There are resources for a well-rounded education, including arts, geography, history, and foreign language. Dedicated funding is preserved for Promise Neighborhoods and Full-Service Community Schools to coordinate services for children and families, and for afterschool programs to provide out-of-school time opportunities. It will be critical to provide adequate funding for these priorities through the appropriations process. The Every Student Succeeds Act includes important funding for early childhood education programs that help provide a strong start for children. I strongly support efforts to provide universal pre-K, and today's bill is a good step to improving coordination of early learning opportunities. Today's bill is not perfect, but it is a strong compromise and a critical improvement over current law. As Congress has worked to rewrite this law, I am grateful to the teachers, parents, administrators, school board members, students, and many others in Maryland schools who have shared their experiences and input with me. I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that this legislation is implemented and funded in a way that works for our schools and students.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this week, world leaders are meeting in Paris to address the serious threat of climate change. Across the globe and here at home, there is broad recognition of the need to act decisively to curb the climate crisis that threatens our communities. And yet today we are considering legislation that would allow continued carbon pollution, jeopardizing public health and the environment. The President's Clean Power Plan limits carbon pollution from new and existing power plants for the first time ever. It is a flexible, meaningful plan that will help states transition to clean energy sources and greater efficiency. It was developed with extensive stakeholder outreach. And it will create jobs, reduce the toxic pollution that is a leading contributor to climate change, and protect public health. The resolutions on the Floor today would stop this common sense plan and prohibit any similar measure. And Congressional Republicans are not offering any plan to replace it. They continue to deny the problem of climate change, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and the damaging storms, increased flooding, and drought that are already impacting our communities. They are ignoring the warnings from our Department of Defense, who call climate change a threat multiplier throughout the world. We have the opportunity to lead, to expand opportunities in 21st century energy, and to protect our environment for future generations. The world is watching. We must reject these shameful, regressive resolutions and act to prevent climate change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who began the discussion here by pointing out that here we go again. We say there is new leadership in town on the Republican side, but it is the same old closed process: closed rule, limit democracy, don't allow a full debate, and don't allow the people's House to decide on important questions for the country. When you have a closed rule, you are starting to close down democracy; you are limiting the ability of this House to make decisions on behalf of all the American people. So we have, as part of the previous question, if you defeat the previous question, a proposal to also improve transparency and openness in the full political process, because this is the people's House, and we would hope that it would do the people's business. But we also know that there are a lot of special interests out there that are spending millions and millions and millions of dollars trying to get their way and substitute their special interests for the public interests. They are spending millions of dollars to try to elect candidates who will do their bidding. What this proposal does is just say we need to be transparent and open about who is spending all that money. People in those interests can continue to spend money to try and elect candidates, but don't do it secretly. Do it openly. So what we are asking is for this House to take up what is called the Disclose Act. The Disclose Act simply says that voters have a right to know which special interests around the country are spending millions and millions of dollars to try to influence their voting decision, because we believe that sunlight and transparency helps build accountability and that accountability helps build a stronger democracy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. So after the Citizens United decision, that terrible decision, what happened? Special interests were able to spend millions and millions of dollars at a time. They weren't constrained by any limits on what kind of contributions they could make. So we got a lot more money, but we also got something else. We got essentially a political underground in spending. We had this system now where people try and channel their moneys in secret ways to hide themselves from the public. So if we get to vote on the Disclose Act, we will see where we stand on the simple question of whether this body supports transparency, because, honestly, if you have got nothing to hide, you have got nothing to fear. Right now we have these commercials out there. They say, ``Paid for by Committee for a Better America,'' ``Paid for by mom and apple pie,'' but the people who are paying for them don't want the voters to know who they are. They want it to be a closed process. We are asking that they disclose their identity. In fact, in the Citizens United case, eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices said they were for more disclosure. And, in fact, recently, Justice Kennedy, who was one of the five in the 5-4 majority, said that the disclosure that he thought would work is not working. But they said the legislature can always act on this issue and improve the transparency and disclosure of the political process. Even Justice Scalia said that would be good for the political process. We want to know who is spending all that money to try and influence decisions of the people's House. What is wrong with a little sunshine? What is wrong with transparency? Doesn't that improve accountability, and doesn't that strengthen our democracy?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 20th Anniversary of the World Day of Road Safety Remembrance. Despite greater awareness of the dangers associated with traveling on the world's roads today and improvements in road safety, more than a million people die each year as a result of road crashes. These crashes remain the single greatest cause of death for healthy Americans abroad. In the U.S., more than 30,000 die in crashes, while more than 2 million are injured annually. The good news is that the number of road deaths is stabilizing even though the number of motor vehicles worldwide has increased. According to the World Health Organization, in the last three years, 79 countries have seen a decrease in the absolute number of traffic fatalities. The bad news is that road users around the world are unequally protected. The risk of dying in a road traffic crash still depends, in great part, on where people live and how they move around. A big gap still separates high income countries from low and middle income ones where 90% of road traffic deaths occur in spite of having just 54% of the world's vehicles. Europe has the lowest death rates per capita. Africa has the highest. Though road safety strategies are saving lives, the pace of change is too slow. More countries are acting on road safety, but further action is required. In its recent report ``Improving Global Road Safety,'' WHO has called for all new roads to be constructed to at least a 3 Star safety standard, using the International Road Assessment Program methodology. Initiatives will be presented this week among government officials, NGOs and international organizations during the 2nd Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety in Brasilia, which coincides with the 20th anniversary of observing the World Day of Remembrance. Among the groups in attendance will be the Association for Safe International Road Travel. Since its founding, ASIRT has been a leading and powerful advocate in support of global road safety. On this World Day of Remembrance, we are reminded of how much progress has been made regarding road safety and how far we still need to go. I encourage my colleagues and the public to reflect on the importance of the task that lies ahead and to commit themselves to the work of preventing the needless deaths caused by road crashes.