Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, for years, the Congress, the President, our European partners, and the international community have imposed a series of tough economic sanctions on Iran with the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Those sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and I commend President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the entire team, along with our P5+1 partners, for their efforts to negotiate an agreement to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. The question for Members of Congress, who will vote on this agreement, is whether it achieves its stated goals. Given the importance of this question, I believe every Member of Congress has an obligation to thoroughly review the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), consider the testimony presented at the Congressional hearings, and listen to competing views before reaching a final judgment. Since the JCPOA was submitted to Congress on July 19, 2015, I have carefully reviewed all of its terms, attended the classified briefings and numerous presentations, and reviewed the transcripts of all the hearings that have been held in both the House and the Senate. I have also met with opponents and supporters of the agreement. While I respect the opinions of those on both sides of this issue, I have concluded that this agreement advances the national security interests of the United States and all of our allies, including our partner Israel. This agreement is the best path to achieve our goal--that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. Indeed, I firmly believe that, should Congress block this agreement, we would undermine that goal, inadvertently weaken and isolate America, and strengthen Iran. The benefit of any agreement must be measured against the real-world consequences of no agreement. Many forget that when these negotiations began in earnest two years ago, Iran was a threshold nuclear weapons state and remains so until and unless this agreement is implemented. As Prime Minister Netanyahu warned at the United Nations in 2012, Iran was a few months away from having enough highly enriched uranium to produce its first bomb. Today, prior to the implementation of this agreement, it has a nuclear stockpile that, if further enriched, could produce up to 10 bombs. It currently has installed nearly 20,000 centrifuges that could convert that fuel into weapons material. Indeed, many analysts believe that the combination of Iran's nuclear stockpile and its centrifuges would allow it to produce enough weapons-grade nuclear material for a bomb in two months. In addition, Iran has been enriching some of its nuclear material at its deep underground reactor at Fordow, a very difficult target to hit militarily. Moreover, Iran was in the process of building a heavy-water reactor at Arak, which could generate plutonium to be used for a nuclear weapon. Finally, Iran has been operating for years under an inadequate verification regime that increases the risks of a covert program going undetected. This agreement blocks all of these paths to acquiring weapons-grade nuclear material and puts in place an inspection system that assures the detection of any violation and future dash to acquire a nuclear weapon. The Interim Agreement has already neutralized Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium that Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted in his speech. This final agreement will significantly scale back the remainder of its program. Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium will be cut from 9,900 kg to 300 kg, and that remainder will be limited to low- enriched uranium that cannot be used for a weapon. In addition, the agreement removes two-thirds of Iran's installed centrifuges. No enrichment activities may be conducted at Fordow for a period of 15 years, and the facility at Arak will be permanently converted to one that does not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Taken together, these measures will extend the breakout time from about two months to at least a year and put in place layers of verification measures over different timelines, including some that remain in place permanently. It is generally agreed that these measures would allow us to detect any effort by Iran to use its current nuclear facilities--Natanz, Fordow, or Arak--to violate the agreement. The main criticism with respect to verification is that the agreement does not sufficiently guard against an effort by Iran to develop a secret uranium supply chain and enrichment capacity at a covert place. However, the reality is that the agreement permanently puts in place an inspection mechanism that is more rigorous than any previous arms control agreement and more stringent than the current system. The agreement ultimately requires inspections of any suspected Iranian nuclear site with the vote of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians can block such inspections in the face of a united Western front. Are we really better off without this verification regime than with it? In exchange for rolling back its nuclear program and accepting this verification regime, Iran will obtain relief from those sanctions that are tied to its nuclear program. However, that relief will only come after Iran has verifiably reduced its nuclear program as required. Moreover, if Iran backslides on those commitments, the sanctions will snap back into place. The snapback procedure is triggered if the U.S. registers a formal complaint against Iran with the special commission created for that purpose. In addition, those U.S. sanctions that are not related to the Iranian nuclear program will remain in place, including U.S. sanctions related to Iran's human rights violations, support for terrorism, and missile program. There are some who oppose the agreement because it does not prevent Iran from engaging in adversarial actions throughout the Gulf, the Middle East, and elsewhere. That conduct, however, was never within the scope of these negotiations nor the objective of the international sanctions regime aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. President Reagan understood the distinction between changing behavior and achieving verifiable limits on weapons programs. He negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, not because he thought it would change the character of ``the Evil Empire'' but because limiting their nuclear arsenal was in the national security interests of the U.S. and our allies. That reality is also true today. An Iranian regime with nuclear capability would present a much greater threat to the region than an Iran without one. In fact, today, as a threshold nuclear weapons state, Iran wields more influence than it will under the constraints of this agreement. That is why our focus has appropriately been on reining in the Iranian nuclear program. The lifting of the sanctions will certainly give Iran additional resources to support its priorities. Given the political dynamic in Iran, some of those additional resources will likely be invested to improve the domestic standard of living. But even if all the resources were used to support their proxies in the region, respected regional observers agree that they are unlikely to make a significant strategic difference. Moreover, any effort by Iran to increase support for its proxies can be checked by the U.S. and our allies through countermeasures. Finally, it is clear that any alternative agreement opponents seek would also result in the lifting of the sanctions and freeing up these resources. In my view, opponents of the agreement have failed to demonstrate how we will be in a better position if Congress were to block it. Without an agreement, the Iranians will immediately revert to their status as a threshold nuclear weapons state. In other words, they immediately pose the threat that Prime Minister Netanyahu warned about in his U.N. speech. At the same time, the international consensus we have built for sanctions, which was already starting to fray, would begin to collapse entirely. We would be immediately left with the worst of all worlds--a threshold nuclear weapons state with diminished sanctions and little leverage for the United States. I disagree with the view that we can force the Iranians back to the negotiating table to get a better deal. All of our European partners have signed on to the current agreement. Consequently, the U.S. would be isolated in its quest to return to negotiations. And in the unlikely event that we somehow returned to negotiations, the critics have not presented a plausible scenario for achieving a better agreement in a world where fewer sanctions means less economic pressure. The bottom line is that if Congress were to block the agreement and the Iranians were to resume nuclear enrichment activities, the only way to stop them, at least temporarily, would be by military action. That would unleash significant negative consequences that could jeopardize American troops in the region, drag us into another ground war in the Middle East, and trigger unpredictable responses elsewhere. Moreover, the United States would be totally isolated from most of the world, including our Western partners. The folly of that go-it-alone military approach would be compounded by the fact that such action would only deal a temporary setback to an Iranian nuclear program. They would likely respond by putting their nuclear enrichment activities deeper underground and would likely be more determined than ever to build a nuclear arsenal. We don't have to take that path. This agreement will give us a long period of time to test the Iranians' compliance and assess their intentions. During that period, it will give us a treasure trove of information about the scope and capabilities of the limited Iranian nuclear program. Throughout that period and beyond, we reserve all of our options, including a military option, to respond to any Iranian attempt to break out and produce enough highly enriched material to make a bomb. But we will have two advantages over the situation as it is today--a more comprehensive verification regime to detect any violation and a much longer breakout period in which to respond. As former Secretary Clinton has indicated, the fact that we have successfully limited the scope of Iran's nuclear program does not mean we have limited its ambitions in the region. We must continue to work with our friends and allies to constantly contain and confront Iranian aggression in the region. The United States and Israel must always stand together to confront that threat. The fact remains that Iranian support for their terrorist proxy Hezbollah continues to destabilize Lebanon and poses a direct threat to Israel, as does its support for Hamas. We must do all we can to ensure that our ally Israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region, including providing increased funding for Israel's Arrow anti-ballistic missile and Iron Dome anti-rocket systems. Consideration should also be given to previously denied weapons if a need for such enhanced capabilities arises. We must always remember that some of Iran's leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and we must never forget the awful past that teaches us not to ignore those threats. The threats Iran poses in the region are real. But all those threats are compounded by an Iran that is a threshold nuclear weapons state. This agreement will roll back the Iranian nuclear program and provide us with greater ability to detect and more time to respond to any future Iranian attempt to build a nuclear weapon. For all of the reasons given above, I've concluded that this is an historic agreement that should be supported by the Congress.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 427, the so-called ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015.'' The REINS Act is yet another attempt by House Republicans to limit the ability of federal agencies to enforce commonsense rules and regulations. This legislation would require Congressional approval before an agency can issue any major new rule. Congress relies on agencies to promulgate rules, because they have expertise in a given area. However, this bill would require that congressional politics play a part in deciding complicated rules and regulations. As a result, this legislation is designed to protect special interests while undermining the ability of federal agencies from doing their jobs and working to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect the public's health and safety. Moreover, Congress already has considerable power to review and reject the rules issued by executive agencies. For the past two decades, Congress has had the authority to pass a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of receiving the rule. If the President signs the resolution of disapproval, the regulation is not implemented. In addition, President Obama has implemented significant reforms to the rulemaking process. In January 2010, he signed an Executive Order requiring agencies to determine if the benefits of proposed rules are justified considering their cost to society. At a time when Congress should be doing everything it can to create jobs and improve the economy, this bill is nothing but a distraction. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1994, the so-called ``VA Accountability Act of 2015.'' There is nothing more important than providing for the men and women who have made so many sacrifices for our country. However, today's legislation is a fake solution and provides no real fix to the fundamental problems at the VA. This legislation turns hundreds of thousands of VA employees-- including many who served in the armed services and are veteran's themselves--into at-will employees. As a result, this would open the door for political abuse and witch-hunts, effectively creating a mechanism where career federal employees could be removed because of their views or political affiliation. In addition, turning individuals into at-will employees would likely discourage whistleblowers from coming forward out of fear of being terminated. Moreover, if this legislation passes, the Department of Veterans Affairs would be the only federal agency with at-will employment, making it harder to recruit and retain the best and brightest employees who are needed to serve our veterans. I was disappointed that a substitute amendment offered by Congressman Takano was not adopted. Rep. Takano's amendment would immediately suspend without pay any employee that is found to put a veteran's health and safety in jeopardy. However, it also ensures that all employees--included whistleblowers--are granted their constitutional right to due process. On the other hand, H.R. 1994 would dismantle civil service protections that have been in place for decades. It would strip away important protections for federal workers and would deny a VA employee the opportunity to appeal a decision to the full Merit Systems Protection Board. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill addresses the systemic problems that continue to plague the VA health care system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished public service career of Curtis M. Graves. Mr. Graves was one of the first African Americans elected to the Texas House of Representatives since the turn of the 20th century. A Democrat and political contemporary of Barbara Jordan, Mr. Graves served in the Texas legislature from 1967 to 1973, where he championed progressive legislation on issues ranging from gun control to criminal justice reform. Mr. Graves also spent many years actively participating in the Civil Rights Movement, fighting for equal rights of all Americans. Mr. Graves was born August 26, 1938 in New Orleans, Louisiana. He is an alumnus of Texas Southern University and Princeton University. After serving in the Texas House of Representatives, Mr. Graves had a thirty year career at the National Aeronautic and Space Administration--first in NASA's Academic Affairs Division and ultimately as its Director for Civil Affairs. On behalf of the people of Maryland's Eighth Congressional District, and in anticipation of his seventy-seventh birthday on August 26, 2015, I would like to thank Curtis M. Graves for his lifelong career of public service and for his many contributions to our nation. I wish him and his family all the best in the years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3009, the so-called ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act.'' This misguided legislation is purportedly a response to the heartbreaking and tragic shooting of Kathryn Steinle earlier this month. However, the reality is that this legislation cynically uses this isolated incident to scapegoat all undocumented immigrants and undermine community policing. Specifically, H.R. 3009 would withhold critical funding for State and local law enforcement agencies as well as victims of crimes unless these jurisdictions bear the burden of enforcing Federal immigration statutes. If passed, this bill would tie the hands of local law enforcement agencies who are working to promote safety and build community trust. Requiring local police to enforce Federal immigration laws often times dissuades undocumented individuals from reporting crimes, offering testimony, and serving as witnesses in court proceedings. For example, the evidence shows that victims of domestic violence will be afraid to report these crimes to police for fear of deportation. A survey conducted by the National Domestic Violence Hotline in 2013 found that nearly 50-percent of foreign born individuals were afraid to seek help because of their immigrant status. As Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson testified earlier this month, ``mandating through legislation the conduct of sheriffs and police chiefs'' is not the way to go. Instead of pushing these failed policies, we need to come together and pass bipartisan legislation to address our broken immigration system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which would preempt the ability of states to require GMO labeling laws. Numerous studies have shown that Americans want to know what's in their food. As states respond to this trend, we should not restrict their ability to keep consumers informed about the food they eat. GMO labeling laws are widely supported by consumers in over 60 countries including China, Russia and the European Union. We should not deny states the ability to make this decision for their residents. While I understand the concerns about the potential for a patchwork of state labeling laws, companies, can, of course, voluntarily choose to provide GMO information on their labeling. In fact, many of those opposing this legislation provide information on GMO products in Europe and other countries. Mr. Chair, this bill was rushed through the Agriculture Committee and came too quickly to the House floor before we could have a serious discussion about GMO labeling and consumer rights. We must closely study the merits of the bill and find common ground between labeling and a consumer's right to know before we vote on this far-reaching legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I do just want to take a break from the GMO debate to talk about a huge problem confronting our country, and that is the infrastructure that is in disrepair, from roads to bridges to transit ways around this country. The American people know it, and they are backed up in what they can see in front of them by a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers. They are the nonpartisan pros; they are the experts. They have looked at the state of American infrastructure and given us a grade of a D-plus--D-plus. Nobody should be happy with a D-plus. The sad thing is that this Congress should get an F grade for failing to respond to the bad grade with respect to our failing infrastructure. In the face of this big problem, what did the House do? Well, we are about to run out of money in 8 days. We are about to see the end of the authorization in 8 days; so the House of Representatives, instead of coming up with a long-term plan to address this issue, which is what we should do, came up with another kick-the-can-down-the-road Band-Aid approach. They said, we are going to provide an extension of the inadequate funding for just 5 more months, just to December of this year. Now, we are a great country, and I think everybody knows that if you are planning to make major investments in infrastructure, whether it is our roads or our bridges or transit ways, you need a little more certainty and stability than that. Certainly, the private sector couldn't plan on 5-month intervals, and we are asking these companies and these workers and these States to come up with long-term plans for our States and for our country on infrastructure, but we are only going to give them 5 months of certainty going forward. We think that is a bad idea. Guess what. Senate Republicans also think that is a bad idea. They came up with a 6-year plan. Now, what we are providing this House today is the opportunity on the very next vote to vote for the opportunity to vote on a robust 6-year transportation infrastructure plan that is fully funded for the first 2 years. How do we pay for that 2-year installment? We pay for it, Mr. Speaker, by getting rid of this egregious tax loophole that many multinational corporations are using to escape their responsibilities to the American taxpayer. Here is how it works. You have an American company. Their headquarters are here; their people are here; everything they do is here. Then they go and they purchase a small company, a small foreign company, and they move their mailing address overseas to that small company, and then that American company benefits from the educational system we have here in the United States.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, they purchase a small foreign company, and then they move their mailing address overseas to that small company. They then say to the American taxpayer: Guess what. We don't have to pay any more taxes in the United States. We don't have to pay taxes for the infrastructure that we have that does support us. We don't have to pay for the education system that supports us. We want a free ride. Now, we need to close down this tax break. More and more companies every day are taking advantage of it. If you close that loophole, you generate $40 billion. And you use that money that otherwise would go to the bottom line of these corporations that are trying to escape their responsibility to the American people and you invest it in infrastructure right here at home. You help modernize your infrastructure, and you put more people to work. We have introduced a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, to do that. The bill is H.R. 3064. And if we defeat the previous question, we as a House will have an opportunity to vote on a 6-year, robust transportation plan that is funded for 2 years by closing this egregious tax loophole that is being exploited by corporations. Let's defeat the previous question. Let's do the right thing for American workers and American infrastructure.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we have a very sad state of affairs here. We know we have an urgent problem with respect to infrastructure around America. Our roads, our bridges, our transitways are in disrepair at a time when we should actually be investing more to modernize our American infrastructure so we can compete and put people back to work. And yet what do we have from our Republican colleagues? More of the same. Five more months of inadequate funding, no certainty for people who need to plan for projects. People are going to face layoffs again. So we have an urgent problem, and the response we get from our Republican colleagues is 5 months of inadequate funding. We have put forward a 6-year plan, the first 2 years fully funded of a more robust plan. How do we fund it? We fund it by saying ``no more'' to the companies, the American companies that are cheating the American taxpayers by inversion. So what are they doing? They are simply changing their addresses to an overseas address so they don't have to pay any more into helping our infrastructure and helping our country. Let me give you an example of what these companies are doing. They are not moving their employees. They are not moving their management. They are not moving their factories or anything else. They are just changing their mailing address by acquiring a small foreign company and, in doing so, saying: We are not going to pay any more of our taxes. So to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I think most Americans would disagree with you that we need more time. We don't need 5 more months to figure out that these corporations are cheating, as taxpayers, by using these special provisions. We can close this tax loophole right now. In fact, about 30 of these companies have inverted in the last 5 years. So we want to wait another 5 months and allow 5, 10 more to use this tax device to escape their responsibilities to the American taxpayer? Why should we do that? Let's do the right thing, and let's do it right now. We have that within our power. That is what the legislation that we have put forward is all about. Let's invest in our national infrastructure, and let's use it by getting the savings from these companies that are engaging in these inversion tax practices. I am pleased to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and congratulate Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Blumenauer on all their work on trying to modernize our national infrastructure. They know what every American out there knows, which is that we have an embarrassing state of affairs when it comes to our roads, our bridges, and our transitways. It is not just them. We also know from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who are the nonpartisan pros, that they have concluded we have failing infrastructure. They gave our infrastructure system a grade of D-plus, a grade we should all be embarrassed by. But what is even worse is this Congress should get a grade of F for its refusal to actually do something about it. So we are about to see an expiration of the authorization in a few weeks. Funding will dry out in a few weeks. And so what is the proposal from our Republican colleagues? Let's do 5 more months, through December, at a level they know is inadequate to help modernize our infrastructure. That is their proposal. As my colleagues have said, we have been here before, and we are tired of Band-Aids. Who can plan to modernize their infrastructure with just a 5-month time period? These are major investments our States are making, major investments we are making on behalf of our country, and to not have any kind of certainty that the funds are going to be there after the end of December is something that is embarrassing for a country like the United States of America. So we are proposing today to do the 6-year plan. Mr. DeFazio has put that forward. The President has put forward the 6-year plan, the Grow America plan, to modernize our infrastructure and grow more jobs in the process, and we fund the first 2-year installment. How do we fund it? We fund through a mechanism that I will bet you virtually every American will support, which is to close these pernicious tax loopholes that are allowing American companies simply to move their mailing address overseas in order to dodge their obligations to the American people. These companies are not moving their employees. They are not moving their management. They are not moving their factories or anything else. They are just changing their mailing address by acquiring a small overseas company. It is called inversion. By doing that, they are escaping their responsibilities to their own country. That is why my colleague called them Benedict Arnold corporations, because they are still benefiting from everything this country has to offer--educating their employees, the infrastructure that we do have, and all the other support structures they get--but they don't want to pay for it. And when they don't pay for it, guess who pays for it. The American people. Their taxes go up, or we have to borrow more on our credit card to pay for it. So what we are saying is let's stop these inversions. Let's use that $41 billion to fund the first 2-year installment of a robust infrastructure plan. And we can do it now. We have introduced the bill, H.R. 3064, introduced by Mr. DeFazio, myself, Mr. Israel, Mr. Levin, Ms. Holmes Norton. The next vote we have, the next vote we cast, will allow this body to take up that legislation. So we don't have to kick the can down the road for just 5 months with all that uncertainty. We can vote to do a robust 6-year plan, have a modernized infrastructure, and pay for it by shutting down these loopholes that corporations are abusing. Let's take that money that is right now going into the pockets of people who are dodging our tax laws and invest in infrastructure. Let's get the job done today, not 5 months from now or a year from now. Let's get it done today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and defeat the previous question so we can take it up.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I thank Ms. McCollum for her work on this bill and to Bobby Scott and Don Beyer for joining me in this effort. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Just yesterday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld EPA authority to set Chesapeake Bay pollution limits, which have led to the best cleanup progress in over 25 years. For the Bay, as with so many other waters across the country, the Clean Water Act backstop is critical to ensure that states are meeting their commitments. In Maryland, we have cities working to manage stormwater and farmers implementing best management practices to stop runoff. But for all our efforts, we will never have a clean and healthy Bay if pollution runs downstream from Pennsylvania, New York, or West Virginia. With our enormous watershed, encompassing 64,000 square miles, six States, and D.C., everyone must do their fair share. And to do that is through the Clean Water Act's Federal backstop. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act. While this bill is not perfect, it is a good step toward better protecting Americans and our environment from dangerous chemicals. Current law, the Toxic Substance Control Act, passed in the 1970s and has been a failure. While its name implies that it gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to ensure the safety of many chemicals, in reality, its scope is severely limited and the standards for action are unreasonably high. It also restricted testing to thousands of chemicals that were already in use when it passed. Since it was enacted, EPA has partially regulated only five chemicals under the law. Democrats have been calling for TSCA reform for many years, and today we are considering the first meaningful change. While it does not go as far as previous Democratic proposals, it represents significant progress over current law. It makes it easier for EPA to test chemicals using a risk-based approach, explicitly protects vulnerable populations, and provides more resources to get the job done. It also allows EPA to move more quickly to address the most toxic and harmful chemicals. Our work is not done--the Senate is finalizing its proposal and we will have to reconcile our differences. I will continue to advocate for strong protections for American families and our environment. I am voting yes today to take an important step forward in that effort.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this attempt to weaken our first real shot at reducing the harmful carbon pollution that is contributing to global climate change and endangering our communities. Last month was the hottest May on record. Last year was the hottest year. We've already seen extreme weather events across the globe--from unprecedented flooding in Texas to deadly drought in India. This is not a coincidence. It is not a fluke. It is a real trend identified by ninety-seven percent of climate scientists worldwide. And it requires our urgent action to protect our constituents and our environment. It is past time. And when skeptics in this Congress refused to acknowledge reality and refused to take any steps to prevent disaster, the President used his authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions, which are a leading contributor to climate change. His proposed Clean Power Plan is a flexible framework for states to cut carbon pollution from power plants for the first time. It's a plan that sets goals, provides options, and lets states figure out what works best for them. But today we are considering a bill that would undermine the very structure of the Clean Air Act. Currently, when states refuse or fail to fulfill their obligations to reduce pollution under the Clean Air Act, the federal government has the obligation to step in to put forward a plan that would meet the law's requirements. This federal backstop is a critical part of our nation's environmental laws. Today's legislation would allow states to ``opt out'' of a federal plan, giving them the authority to ignore their responsibility to comply with the rule and leaving their residents without protection from carbon pollution. Moreover, we are considering this bill before the Clean Power Plan is even finalized. The EPA is in the process of considering input from many states to refine the proposal before putting forward a final rule. This bill would simply delay efforts to reduce air pollution. Mr. Speaker, just last week the Pope called on all of us to live up to our moral responsibility to act on climate change to protect our communities, our environment, and the most vulnerable among us. We should heed that call, reject this bad bill, and work together to prevent the most damaging impacts of climate change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the career of a distinguished public servant, Stanley Hankin, after a remarkable 53 years of service to our country. On July 3, 2015, Mr. Hankin will be retiring from the U.S. Department of Labor, leaving a legacy of extraordinary dedication to the Department and to the American worker. Mr. Hankin arrived at the U.S. Department of Labor in 1962 as a graduate student at the University of Maryland. He began in the Division of State and Federal Relations within the Bureau of Employment Security, where he developed national training programs for workers in the State Employment Security system. At that time, videotape technology was just being introduced, although its uses were largely unknown within the government. Using his initiative and foresight, Mr. Hankin transformed video into an integral part of the Department's strategy to convey its messages to the American public. As an innovator and forward-thinker, Mr. Hankin's talents as an Audiovisual Producer were well-known. He ran nationwide training workshops on how to videotape and produce programs, and he began videotaping significant meetings and sending the recordings to employees in the field. Mr. Hankin also persuaded the Job Corps and the Bureau of Apprenticeship to utilize video PSAs as tools for promoting their good work. After Jobs Corps began to collaborate with the National Football League, Mr. Hankin produced the first in-house Department of Labor PSA, which featured Rosey Grier and Ron Jaworski of the Philadelphia Eagles and Franco Harris of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Mr. Hankin continued his work with video into the 1970s, a period when the technology was gaining popularity. During this time, he began efforts to use video as a means of communicating with workers, and also started a program to coach Department of Labor executives for on-camera appearances and interviews. In the 1980s, when the Department of Labor was given a fully operational Ampex Television studio, Mr. Hankin seized the opportunity. Before long, he was producing award-winning programs for both employees and employers. Mr. Hankin's accomplishments were so widespread that he was invited to Amsterdam to teach its Labor Department employees how to produce video programming. He was then asked to document the 1983 Conference of Liberators, which brought together men and women from across the world who had played a role in liberating Nazi concentration camps. The resulting work, To Bear Witness, brought the Department critical acclaim, winning an Emmy in 1983. From the 1990s until today, Mr. Hankin continued to approach the Department's use of various forms of media with great innovation. Among many other projects, he produced emergency PSAs for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and Up From Zero, a program documenting the heroic workers in New York City who reclaimed and recovered the World Trade Center site. Considered by Mr. Hankin to be one of the Department's crowning achievements, Up From Zero won numerous awards, including the coveted CINE Golden Eagle Award. His most recent plans include making video-streaming a regular component of the Department's events and maintaining the standard of excellence expected of the Department's television facility. Whether he was training Department employees on how to better communicate the goals of their new programs and initiatives or producing PSAs to help the unemployed, at-risk youth, or veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Mr. Hankin always has supported the mission of the Department to assist and protect the rights of American workers. Over the course of his career, he produced or directed more than 1000 video programs and projects. Through his leadership, infectious energy, and enthusiasm, Mr. Hankin has inspired a standard of excellence in the creative disciplines throughout the Department of Labor. A truly remarkable and accomplished public servant, he has received well-deserved recognition and the love and respect of employees throughout the decades. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude and appreciation to Stanley Hankin for his 53 years of outstanding service to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2685, the FY16 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. While I commend the House Appropriations Committee's support for our servicemembers and our national defense, I have serious concerns about the way this bill funds our military operations. As was the case with last month's National Defense Authorization Act, this appropriations bill uses the Overseas Contingency Operations budget as a backdoor loophole to get around sequestration by funding $38 billion of the Pentagon's regular base budget activities with war funds--a blatant abuse of the budget process. Just last year, House Republicans criticized the abuse of the OCO loophole in their budget report, stating that it ``undermines the integrity of the budget process'' and that the Budget Committee would ``oppose increases above the levels the Administration and our military commanders say are needed to carry out operations unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such amounts are war-related.'' Moreover, in following the strategy of the Republican budget, this legislation begins the process of locking in sequestration for nondefense programs, which will have a devastating impact on investments critical to the nation. We need to get back to the table to have an honest debate about our budget and renegotiate the funding caps for both defense and nondefense. Only then will we be able to provide the necessary resources for our national security needs and to ensure we keep the nation's commitments to education, research, infrastructure, and other crucial drivers of economic prosperity. I also have serious concerns with a number of other provisions contained in this legislation. I strongly object to a measure which provides $600 million to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels. As I have urged repeatedly, this initiative could have unintended negative consequences that will not serve our ultimate goal of defeating ISIS. Unfortunately, an amendment offered to strip this funding was not adopted. I strongly oppose sections 8100, 8101, and 8102 of this bill, which prohibit funding for the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to both the United States and abroad. While we must pursue and prosecute terrorists that seek to do us harm, this facility--and the conduct within its walls--have only served to hurt our nation in the eyes of the world. It is simply un-American to hold individuals without charging them for a crime. I was disappointed that amendments offered by Congressman Nadler to strike these sections from the legislation were defeated. I also object to the inclusion of unrequested funding for many weapons systems, including $1 billion for additional Army vehicles and weapons systems that the Pentagon said was not necessary. I appreciate that this bill contains a Sense of Congress stating that this body has a Constitutional duty to debate and decide when to authorize the use of military force in the fight against ISIL. I support many aspects of the military operations the President is currently conducting against ISIL, including the use of American air power against ISIL targets and in support of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, as well as the deployment of limited numbers of American troops to help train and equip those forces. However, it has now been ten months since the President sent troops into Iraq and Syria and four months since the President sent Congress a proposed AUMF to combat ISIL. The President himself said he wanted to revise and ultimately repeal both the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF yet we continue to rely on them as justification for our ongoing military operations. We owe it to our troops and the American people to pass a narrowly tailored AUMF that provides the authority necessary to degrade and defeat ISIL without dragging the United States into another unnecessary ground war in the Middle East. For those reasons, I was disappointed that two amendments offered by Congresswoman Lee to sunset the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against and Al-Qaeda and associated forces and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq were not adopted. In addition, an amendment offered by Congressman Schiff to prohibit the use of funds for Operation Inherent Resolve in the absence of an AUMF to combat ISIL after March 31, 2016 was defeated. Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased that a bipartisan amendment introduced by Rep. Massie and Rep. Lofgren to limit funding for many backdoor programs within Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act passed. I also support the increased 2.3 percent pay raise for our troops and their families. Finally, I support the inclusion of full funding of the President's request for U.S.-Israel Iron Dome missile defense program. While this bill does provide much needed funding for programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, ultimately, it falls short in too many areas. It is my hope that many of my objections will be resolved in Conference with the Senate but I can't support it in its current form.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 55, which requires the President to withdraw our troops deployed in Iraq and Syria before the end of the year unless Congress passes an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to combat ISIL. I do want to stress that I support many aspects of the military operations the President is currently conducting against ISIL, including the use of American air power against ISIL targets and in support of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, as well as the deployment of limited numbers of American troops to help train and equip those forces. However, it has now been ten months since the President sent troops into Iraq and Syria and four months since the President sent Congress a proposed AUMF to combat ISIL. While I have serious concerns with that proposed draft, we owe it to our troops and the American people to at the very least have a debate in Congress on our military engagement in Iraq and Syria. My primary concern is that the President continues to rely on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against and Al-Qaeda and associated forces and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq as justification to take military action against ISIL. While he has repeatedly stated that he will not deploy ground troops in a combat role in either Syria or Iraq, these existing authorities leave that door open. We need to sunset both the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF and pass a narrowly tailored AUMF to combat ISIL that provides the authority necessary to degrade and defeat ISIL without dragging the United States into another unnecessary ground war in the Middle East.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Trade Preferences Extension Act, which will extend important trade preferences to our partners around the world. First, this bill extends the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) until September 2025. This will expand preferences and reduce trade barriers with African countries and foster U.S. investment in the region. It will also help to promote social and economic development and empower farmers and women through sustainable agriculture assistance. The bill also retroactively renews and updates the General System of Preferences (GSP), which reduces trade barriers by allowing various products from developing countries to enter into the U.S. duty-free. This program expired in July 2013 and I am glad to see that it has finally been renewed. It also extends trade preferences with Haiti and ensures that we continue to assist Haiti's recovery and support its economy. In addition, the bill will also help outerwear and footwear imports by reducing duty rates and creating a new category of product that will include protective active footwear. I am also pleased that it strikes the Medicare pay-for found in the Trade Adjustment Assistance package and replaces it with a different offset that I helped identify. In addition, I am pleased that this bill will support community banks by reducing burdensome reporting requirements. These measures represent a significant effort to reduce trade barriers and support our partners around the world and I urge a YES vote. I hope that the Senate will pass this legislation expeditiously and send it to the President's desk.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 2596, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2016. Though I have always appreciated the bipartisan spirit in which the Intelligence Committee members work to craft the annual authorization bill, and I acknowledge the many vital programs the bill support, I disagree with the way H.R. 2596 uses Overseas Contingency Operations funding and how it prevents the closure of the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For those reasons, I cannot vote for the bill. H.R. 2596 authorizes funding to support important research, information gathering and information sharing resources for decision makers at all levels of the federal government. The funding helps to maintain and support the intelligence infrastructure and it helps to strengthen our defenses against threats from around the world. This bill provides for cutting-edge counterintelligence technical analysis, cybersecurity, it protects Americans against the use of advanced weapons, and helps to arrest nuclear and other weapon proliferation threats. The funding in this bill is also the reason we were able to kill Nasir al Wuhayshi, al Qaida's number two leader. However, the bill also continues Republican-led efforts to lock in sequestration and, as a result, fails to authorize sufficient funds for important intelligence community priorities. Instead, the bill uses OCO funding in ways that leaders of both parties have made clear are inappropriate. Just last year, House Republicans criticized the abuse of the OCO loophole in their budget report, stating that it ``undermines the integrity of the budget process.'' Moreover, in following the strategy of the Republican budget, this legislation begins the process of locking in sequestration for nondefense programs, which will have a devastating impact on investments critical to the nation. We need to get back to the table to have an honest debate about our budget and renegotiate the funding caps for both defense and nondefense. Only then will we be able to provide the necessary resources for our national security needs and to ensure we keep the nation's commitments to education, research, infrastructure, and other crucial drivers of economic prosperity.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Customs bill--a bill that was included as part of a trade package that includes Trade Adjustment Assistance and Trade Promotion Authority, also known as Fast Track. This vote represents a flawed and hurried process to expedite the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Moreover, the Customs Bill fails to strengthen trade policy and enforcement and instead is being used as a way to weaken TPA and its negotiating objectives. While the Customs bill is designed to modernize customs operations and promote enforcement at the border through trade laws, it takes a number of steps back in these areas. For example, this bill cuts funding for the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center and the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund. It also removes a currency manipulation provision that passed out of the Senate with bipartisan support that would have imposed countervailing duties against countries that manipulate their currencies. I am also troubled by a provision that weakens a human trafficking negotiating objective that would have prevented the U.S. from entering into trade agreements with countries in the State Department Human Trafficking Report such as Malaysia, by allowing the President to simply certify that countries are taking ``concrete steps'' to address human trafficking. In addition, I am deeply opposed to a new negotiating objective that was added in the 11th hour, which ensures that trade agreements do not create new obligations related to combating climate change or that would require changes in U.S. domestic laws. Trade agreements must not restrict our ability to tackle climate change in the 21st century. This bill also adds restrictive language related to immigration to ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. immigration laws or the issuance of new visas. Mr. Speaker, we have to strengthen TPA and its negotiating objectives--not weaken it. We must improve TPA before moving forward on any future trade agreement that will have wide-ranging consequences for America's working class. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015. This bill represents a hasty response to a recent WTO ruling on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and fails to take into account the wide-ranging views of multiple stakeholders, including consumer, labor, farm, environmental and faith-based groups. The WTO Appellate Body ruled against United States COOL regulations only a few weeks ago and two days after, H.R. 2393 was pushed through the House Agriculture Committee. While the WTO ruled that COOL discriminated against imported livestock, it also determined that COOL is a ``legitimate objective'' to provide consumers information on food origin. COOL has been successfully implemented for various nuts, fruits, vegetables, seafood and other food products. Congress must support this progress and take its time to develop a COOL policy that is WTO compliant and reflects the views of consumers and other stakeholders. While critics have pointed to the retaliatory threats issued by Canada as a reason to expedite this legislation, it is too soon to know whether these threats have merit. Canada and Mexico still must seek WTO authority to impose retaliatory tariffs. The WTO must determine whether this amount equals the damages incurred by Canada and Mexico under COOL. The U.S. can appeal these claims and request that the WTO appoint an arbitrator to determine the proper level of damages. Arbitration cases generally last several months. There is still ample time for the U.S., Canada and Mexico to come to an agreement before retaliation can take effect. The Congress should let this process play out before taking action. I also have concerns about the level of damages Canada is seeking in response to COOL. Its claims cite data that is not publically available, while studies from the U.S. supported by data from USDA show that COOL has not had a negative impact on Canadian and Mexican livestock imports. Consumers have a right to know where their food comes from and studies show that Americans strongly support country of origin labeling. Congress should support the desires of consumers and wait for the WTO process to run its course before taking action. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Res. 233, I rise to encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution urging Iran to release all American citizens currently being illegally held in that country. This resolution also urges the immediate release of information about any other American citizens who have disappeared within Iran's borders. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has stated publically that his government wishes to engage in a constructive interaction with the world. This resolution challenges President Rouhani to back up his words with action. If the Iranian people want to earn the trust of the American people, they must honor their commitments and keep their word. Americans Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian and Robert Levinson have been unjustly held against their will in Iran for years. This resolution urges Iran to do the right thing and release them so that they can come home and rejoin their families.