Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the trade package that includes trade adjustment assistance and trade promotion authority, also known as fast track, represents a flawed and hurried process to expedite the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that is almost at the finish line. We should not vote for a TPA that fails to include strong and enforceable negotiating objectives on currency manipulation, labor rights and does not address the investor state dispute settlement system, which could see corporations challenge government regulations in secret tribunals that leave taxpayers on the hook for the bill. I also strongly oppose using trade adjustment assistance as a bargaining chip to help pass a flawed TPA. I support providing assistance to workers displaced by trade but this bill should stand on its own merits and be improved on behalf of all workers before it is rushed through for a final vote. We must go back to strengthen TAA and TPA before moving forward on any future trade agreement that will have wide-ranging consequences for America's working class.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of a friend, a public servant, and a good man--Beau Biden. I joined the Biden family last weekend to mourn his loss, which is felt by all who knew him, and celebrate his life, which has left an indelible impact. Beau was a gifted lawyer who was twice elected attorney general in the state of Delaware and served his country in the National Guard in Iraq. But more than that, he was a devoted son, a loving husband, and a caring father. Joe and his boys lived through great personal tragedy with the loss of his wife, Neilia, and daughter, Naomi. They have an unbreakable bond. And they, along with the rest of the family, have found the greatest joy in spending time together. No one who has come in contact with the Biden family can miss the deep love and devotion they have for one another. I had the privilege of getting to know Beau better during the Obama- Biden reelection campaign. We were together on several occasions, including in the immediate aftermath of the Biden-Ryan debate. A very proud son was beaming about his dad's stellar performance. In that moment, you could see Beau's competitive spirit fuse with his devotion to his dad. I extend my deepest sympathies to my friends Joe and Jill, to Beau's wife, Hallie, and their two children, his siblings, Hunter and Ashley, and the entire Biden family. I hope that they can take comfort in the love they share and the knowledge that they do not walk alone in their grief. We have lost Beau far too soon, but his memory lives on until we meet again.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the retirement of Ira Goldstein, National Director, U.S. Federal Practice at Deloitte LLP. Ira will soon retire after 13 years with Deloitte and a distinguished career serving the public and private sector spanning four decades. Since joining Deloitte in 2003, Ira created and developed Deloitte's Federal client service capabilities. He has served a broad range of Federal clients, including Cabinet agencies, and has been a member of Deloitte's Federal leadership team--most recently as its Civilian Sector Leader bringing innovative and leading edge solutions to the Federal government. Ira's roots are embedded in public service where he spent 17 years working for the Federal government, including as U.S. Assistant Comptroller General and Chief Operating Officer at the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)--now renamed the Government Accountability Office. In this capacity, Ira was responsible for GAO operations, including performance management, strategic planning, financial management, quality assurance, workforce development and information systems. Previously, he served as Acting Associate Commissioner of Social Security and Director of Policy for Family Assistance, with oversight of the $14 billion Aid to Families with Dependent Children (cash welfare) Program. Ira began his Federal career in the Office of Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human services) and served as Director of the HEW Secretary's Policy Statement Staff. Prior to entering government, Ira was Deputy Program Manager for Infiltration Surveillance services at Hazeltine Corporation serving the Naval Air Systems Command during the Vietnam War. Ira received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Pennsylvania and his Masters of Business Administration with Distinction from Harvard Business School. He has served on various boards and community organizations and is currently a Fellow at the National Academy of Public Administration, a Director at the National College Access Network, and a Washington Regional Board Member at the Anti-Defamation League. Ira's passion for improving the way the government works and operates, ultimately to service the citizen, has been a theme throughout his professional career. He is currently working on a book focused on the keys to managing success in the federal government. Ira's federal management experience and private sector insights will help professionals and students better understand how to be effective in the federal environment. On behalf of the people of the 8th Congressional District in Maryland, I would like to thank Ira for his years of service and wish him, his wife Linda and his family all the best in the years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, just yesterday, I signed a letter with five other Ranking Members on this side of the aisle in opposition to this poorly conceived Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Reauthorization bill--which is also opposed by the Obama Administration, CFTC Chairman Massad, and a whole host of consumer groups. For those who aren't familiar with it, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has a very important job: it regulates the futures and options markets in the agricultural sector, including commodity- related derivatives. While there's no question that the appropriate use of these financial instruments can help farmers and commercial end users hedge their commercial risk, recent history clearly demonstrates that the unregulated abuse of these kinds of products can distort markets, hurt consumers and put our entire economy at risk. The CFTC's authority was allowed to expire in 2013, so its reauthorization is long overdue. Having said that, today's legislation has multiple major defects. I will briefly describe three. First, Title II of H.R. 2289 imposes new bureaucratic requirements on an agency whose activities are already governed by the Commodity Exchange Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. With all due respect, the bureaucracy does not need more bureaucracy. In this case, it simply needs to do its job policing our financial markets. If enacted into law, Title II of this bill would undermine the CFTC's ability to do its job and subject the commission to unnecessary and costly litigation risk. Second, Title III of H.R. 2289 requires a complex new rulemaking for our international derivatives markets. While I support the goal of harmonizing global rules in this area, this provision of the bill interferes with the CFTC's ongoing negotiations to achieve that objective and instead substitutes and attempts to predetermine the majority's preferred outcome for those negotiations. In my judgment, the CFTC should be allowed to complete its negotiations unfettered by the dictates of this legislation. Finally, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that all of the additional requirements placed on the CFTC by this legislation will require 30 new employees at a cost of $45 million over the next five years--a cost this bill does not even attempt to pay for. Moreover, an amendment to permit the CFTC to collect user fees to close that gap and help pay for the CFTC's operations was not even afforded the opportunity for an up or down vote on the floor of the House today. Mr. Chair, the reauthorization of the CFTC is an important subject, worthy of a far more thoughtful bill than we are being asked to consider today. I strongly urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, on June 2, 2015, I was unavoidably detained and missed four votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 270, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 271, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 272, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 273.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, in 2007, following reports that the United States could lose its competitive edge in the global economy, Congress came together on a bipartisan basis to boost federal research, spur American innovation, and maintain our strength in scientific and technological discovery. We reauthorized that bill, again on a bipartisan basis, in 2010. Unfortunately, today we have a bill on the floor that abandons those bipartisan efforts, shortchanges critical research, and unacceptably interferes in decision-making at our scientific institutions. It makes particularly egregious cuts to climate change research and efforts to develop new energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies for a cleaner energy future. Climate change is real and we are already seeing its impacts across the country. But it also provides economic opportunity, if we invest in R&D to develop new renewable sources and efficiency technologies. This bill would jeopardize American innovation in this critical area. Today's bill also meddles in decision-making at our federal research institutions, decreasing funding at certain directorates at the National Science Foundation and imposing new requirements in the grant- making process. Our science agencies have a robust review process in place to fund the most critical research. Politics should have no part in that process. Unlike earlier America COMPETES bills that were built on broad consensus, HR 1806 is opposed by the vast majority of our nation's scientific community. I urge my colleagues to listen to these scientists and bring forward a bill that invests in American innovation and supports the cutting-edge research necessary to maintain our leadership in the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1735, the FY16 National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this body votes on each year. While this bill does authorize much needed funding for our men and women in uniform, ultimately it ignores the current budget landscape that our military is facing. Consistent with the Republican budget, this year's defense authorization 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 one year ago, 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, the NDAA 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 many problems with a number of misguided provisions in this year's NDAA. Once again, this year's NDAA includes a provision to continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. I strongly opposed Rep. Walorski's amendment to keep Guantanamo open for at least two more years beyond FY16 and was disappointed that an amendment offered by Ranking Member Smith to provide a framework for closure of Guantanamo by the end of 2016 was rejected. I also oppose efforts by Republicans to strike an important provision in this bill which would have stated that it was the sense of the House that our military should review whether ``DREAMers'' should be allowed to enlist and serve in the Armed Forces. In addition, I object to provisions that prohibit the Pentagon from entering into contracts to construct alternative fuel refineries and prevent our military from developing alternative energy sources that have the potential to save money and enhance our energy security. Finally, I object to the inclusion of unrequested funding for many weapons systems, including an extra $1.15 billion for extra F/A-18 aircraft and $128 million for extra UH-60 helicopters. Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased that a bipartisan amendment I introduced with Congressman Mulvaney was adopted and will require Congress to report on how funds authorized for overseas contingency operations were ultimately used. I also support the increased 2.3 percent pay raise for our troops and their families. While this legislation does authorize much needed funding for programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, ultimately, this bill falls short in too many areas. It is my hope that many of my objections to the NDAA 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 strong opposition to H.R. 36. This bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks without an adequate exception to protect a woman's health--a violation of Roe V. Wade--and would impose unreasonable burdens on rape and incest survivors. The legislation is the latest attack by House Republicans on women's health, and what's even more insulting is that they brought it to the floor during Women's Health Week. H.R. 36 would deny a woman the right to an abortion even if she is experiencing serious medical complications from pregnancy, or her physician is unable to diagnose her fetus with severe and lethal anomalies until after 20 weeks. These anomalies frequently lead to fetal death before or shortly after birth. Moreover, by imposing criminal penalties on physicians who provide abortion care, the bill would eventually lead to the deterioration of the critical patient- doctor relationship. As you know, Republicans pulled an earlier version of this after a clash in their caucus over the exception for adult rape survivors which would require women to report the crime to law enforcement before they could get an abortion. That language has been modified to require rape survivors to seek and provide documentation of medical treatment or counseling 48 hours prior to an abortion. The bill also includes unfair reporting and documentation requirements for minors who have survived rape and incest. Without a doubt these barriers are deliberately designed to restrict a women's right to choose. I'm pleased to see a range of organizations voice strong opposition to this bill including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, NARAL Pro-Choice American, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center, National Council of Jewish Women, and others. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for women's health and oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 2250, a bill to fund the operations of the U.S. House of Representatives for 2016 and for other purposes. In these times of needed fiscal discipline, everyone must do their part. We are bound by funding caps and, though the president has put forward a blueprint to address sequestration, the Republican leadership has chosen to disregard the plan. As a result, appropriators have produced a bill that makes deep cuts to agencies and programs that support the legislative branch when compared to the president's request. H.R. 2250 provides a total of $3.341 billion for vital House and House affiliated functions as well as for greater Congressional operations. This is a reduction from the president's request of $200 million. Within the total available funding, $492.2 million is provided for the Architect of the Capitol which oversees maintenance and repairs of House and Senate office buildings in addition to many other important buildings in the Congressional complex. Excluding Senate items, this is an $84 million reduction in funding for maintenance of the Capitol Visitor Center, the Capitol Grounds, the Library of Congress and the U.S. Botanical Garden. $591.4 million is provided in the bill to fund Library of Congress (LOC) operations. In addition to being the repository of the nation's print and recorded media, the LOC serves as the research arm of Congress, helping to inform the legislative debate on Capitol Hill. This bill cuts its funding by $33 million below the president's request. The bill also reduces funding for the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO functions as the ``congressional watchdog'' by investigating how federal agencies spend American taxpayer dollars. This bill funds GAO at $522 million, which is $31 million less than the president's request. H.R. 2250 does increase funding for the Capitol Police when compared to enacted funding levels, but the increase is actually a $10 million cut when compared to the president's request. I believe spending taxpayer dollars carefully should always be a priority of Congress, and seeking ways to reduce government spending should also be a priority. There are funding reductions in the bill that I support, including the pay freeze for Members of Congress. But the American people expect us to make wise cuts. They don't want us cutting for the sake of cutting--especially when vital services may be impacted. The president's budget contained a strategy to address sequestration that would have made many of these cuts unnecessary. I regret that my Republican colleagues chose to ignore it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Grow America Act, introduced today by Congressman Peter DeFazio. As we prepare to vote on yet another short-term extension, it is important to reiterate the kind of investment our nation needs to build a 21st century transportation system. We cannot continue kicking the can down the road as our nation's infrastructure continues to deteriorate. It is also clear that we cannot keep flat-funding infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our nation's infrastructure a D+ grade--we need significant new investment to repair structurally-deficient bridges, upgrade transit systems, and rebuild roads. The Grow America Act will increase funding for these critical needs. While I do not agree with all the policy provisions in this Act, and believe there are some important ideas that are not included, I am proud to add my name as a cosponsor to support critical investment in transportation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass a long-term, comprehensive bill this summer.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1732, a bill which blocks efforts to clarify the Clean Water Act before agencies even produce a final rule. There is consensus that the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act is confusing and has frustrated many in the regulated community. Two Supreme Court decisions and guidance dating from the Bush Administration has caused years of uncertainty and difficulty in the permitting process. Clarifying responsibilities under the Clean Water Act will ease those frustrations while protecting critical drinking water for our constituents. The Administration has undertaken a comprehensive review process to solicit comment from all the stakeholders to rewrite the rules. While today's bill argues that the Army Corps and EPA have made insufficient effort to obtain input from the regulated community, there have been over 400 public meetings and hundreds of thousands of public comments. The public comment period lasted 207 days. This bill would throw out that whole process and force the Administration to start from scratch, delaying regulatory certainty and clean water protections indefinitely. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and evaluate the merits of the final rule when it is released in a few weeks.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important legislation to provide for Congressional review of any final nuclear agreement with Iran. It is the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is my position, and it has been the position of both President Obama and a majority in the United States Congress. As I indicated in a statement a few weeks ago, I support President Obama's ongoing effort to work with our P5+1 partners to achieve a strong and verifiable agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This legislation makes clear that Congress must exercise its responsibilities in this process. As the Administration has acknowledged, many important details remain to be worked out before the June 30 deadline. These include ensuring that inspectors are able to visit all nuclear sites in Iran, that sanctions only begin to unwind after the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms that Iran is complying with the terms of the final agreement, that the ``snap back'' of sanctions is assured should Iran violate the agreement, and that Iran implements an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA's concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of its program. I will be carefully monitoring and reviewing the ongoing negotiations to determine whether the final agreement meets the objectives we established. The legislation before us today ensures the very important role that Congress must play in this process. It provides that Congress will review this agreement and have the opportunity to act. Moreover, it makes clear that any repeal of sanctions legislation will require congressional action. As negotiations continue, I look forward to working with the president and my congressional colleagues to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I agree with President Obama that it would be best if we can achieve that objective by negotiating a verifiable agreement. But I also agree with him that no deal is better than a bad deal. Madam Speaker, the President and a majority in the Congress are united in our commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Let us continue to pursue that objective together.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2297, the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act. The aim of the bill is to curtail the funding of Hezbollah's domestic and international terrorist activities by disrupting its logistics and financial network. The bill proposes diplomatic, legislative, and executive strategies to combat Hezbollah including directing the Treasury Department to prohibit or impose strict restrictions on the activities of financial institutions that knowingly facilitate transactions for the terrorist group. Some of the world's most powerful banks are suspected of knowingly helping Hezbollah fund its terror operations by concealing billions of dollars in transactions with its Iranian sponsor. This bill will help to curb those activities. H.R. 2297 is largely the same bill as that which passed the House unanimously last July. The only differences are minor and include the stripping of the findings clauses and the removal of the section on conflict minerals. Hezbollah's global logistics and financial network is a lifeline to the organization that strengthens its power to consolidate within countries such as Lebanon and Syria. I encourage my colleagues join me again in supporting the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2048, the USA Freedom Act. In the wake of last week's 2nd Circuit Court Decision, I want to commend Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Congressman Nadler, for crafting legislation that makes meaningful reforms to many NSA surveillance programs--including Section 215 of the Patriot Act--and is a departure from the untenable status quo. However, despite these positive reforms, this bill fails to address Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, an even more invasive program than Section 215 which allows the government to collect both data and content of Americans without a warrant. Last year's version of the USA Freedom Act similarly scaled back many of the surveillance programs the NSA currently has at its disposal. Unfortunately, Section 702 was not one of them. Throughout the process, we were repeatedly assured by Chairman Goodlatte and Congressman Sensenbrenner that there would be a real future effort to address Section 702. At that time, Rep. Sensenbrenner stated, ``Section 702 of FISA has been improperly used to obtain the content of Americans' private communications without a warrant, which is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and a blatant violation of Americans' civil liberties.'' Like Rep. Sensenbrenner, I have also consistently said that Section 702 opened the door to some of the most troublesome surveillance practices that have come to light in recent years. Last year, I strongly supported the effort to fix those aspects of Section 702. Unfortunately, as I indicated last year, last minute changes stripped out provisions that would have ``prevented the NSA from being able to search government databases for foreign communications content of American citizens without a warrant.'' When those important provisions were removed, Chairman Goodlatte and Rep. Sensenbrenner pledged that we would address these reforms without delay. Unfortunately, here we are a year later and Chairman Goodlatte and Rep. Sensenbrenner still have not allowed for a full debate and vote on this issue. Despite the Chairman's supposed support to end Section 702, when Congresswoman Lofgren offered an amendment during markup of the USA Freedom Act to prohibit these warrantless backdoor searches, Chairman Goodlatte said, ``this is a poison pill amendment . . ., there is a time and a place for everything.'' When this bill came before the Rules Committee, Rep. Lofgren was not even allowed to offer her amendment. The refusal to include reforms to Section 702 is even more disappointing given that there are many important provisions in this bill that provide additional safeguards to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. Specifically, this bill puts significant constraints on the government's ability to collect data under Section 215. No longer will the NSA be able to collect the phone records of millions of Americans who have no connection to crime or terrorism. Instead, every request made by the NSA for specific call records must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the FISA court. This legislation also carefully constructs the definition of the ``specific selection terms'' the government can use to access call records. H.R. 2048 requires the ``specific selection term'' to be an ``individual, account, or personal device.'' As a result, no longer will the NSA be able to collect phone records in bulk using terms like ``People in Maryland'' and ``Area Code 301.'' Despite these improvements to Section 215, I remain disappointed that the bill does not establish a Citizens Advocate to represent citizens' privacy interests at the secret FISA Court proceedings. In 2013, Representative Jim Jordan and I introduced bipartisan legislation to create such a position. The initial draft of last year's USA Freedom Act included this provision, but this language has since been weakened and only provides for a panel of advisors to be employed at the discretion of the FISC. Last month's decision by the Second Circuit in ACLU v. Clapper, makes clear that Section 215 is illegal and that a clean re-authorization would be a clear violation of the law. So while I appreciate the reforms made in this bill to Section 215, these reforms are modest given the Court's recent decision. On the other hand, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act does not sunset until the end of 2017 and there is no clear indication that we will be voting to curtail this program anytime in the near future. I believe that today's legislation could be our last real opportunity to address this. It is my hope that the companion legislation in the Senate includes these provisions and that I will be able to support a final compromise bill later this year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee for their hard work over the past three months on the budget resolution. Since early February when the President sent Congress his budget, our staff has worked many late nights and long weekends to prepare material and provide analysis for our members. Their service to our Committee's work is indispensable and it's hard to imagine how the Congress could do its job without their contributions. They toil behind the scenes and without public recognition. For that reason, I want to salute them for their service to the Congress and our nation. House Budget Committee Democratic staff: Sarah Abernathy, Erika Appel, Ellen Balis, Kathleen Capstick, Ken Cummings, Bridgett Frey, Jonathan Goldman, Jocelyn Griffin, Jose Guillen, Tom Kahn, Najy Kamal, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Kimberly Overbeek, Karen Robb, Scott Russell, Beth Stephenson, Cody Willming, Ted Zegers.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the third annual United Nations Global Road Safety Week and to celebrate the contribution of the Association for Safe International Road Travel (ASIRT) to the global effort to reduce the number of road crashes around the world. ASIRT is extremely active in the global movement to promote and improve road safety. Tens of thousands of people are injured as a result of traffic collisions each year. More than 500 children are killed every day in road crashes and 186,300 children under 18 die from road traffic crashes annually. The rates of road traffic death are three times higher in developing countries than in developed countries. As part of the Decade of Action for Road Safety, ASIRT has joined with the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration to announce #SaveKidsLives, a global campaign focused on delivering a Child Declaration on Road Safety to the policymakers who can make a difference. During UN Global Road Safety Week, the #SaveKidsLives Campaign seeks to highlight the plight of children on the world's roads and generate action to better ensure their safety. The campaign features hundreds of events hosted by governments, international agencies, civil society organizations, and private companies, including the delivery of the ``Child Declaration for Road Safety'' to policy- makers. During this Global Road Safety Week, I salute ASIRT and the United Nations for the work they are doing to promote road safety domestically and around the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.J. Res. 43, a bill that aims to overturn the Reproductive Health Non- discrimination Amendment Act (RHNDA) which was recently passed by the DC City Council. The purpose of the RHNDA is to prevent DC employers from discriminating against workers for making personal reproductive health decisions that conflict with the expressed values of their employer. For example, the law prevents the firing of an employee for getting pregnant outside of marriage. Supporters of H.J. Res. 43 say the bill's intent is to protect the rights of employers who do not want to be forced to support the reproductive decisions of their employees. However, the RHNDA imposes no new requirements on employers to provide health insurance and does not change the insurance policies of current workers in any way. RHNDA's aim is simply to ensure that workers are judged based on their work decision-making, rather than on their personal health decision- making. This Republican bill is not only an assault on workers' rights; it is also an assault on the rights of self-determination of the people of Washington D.C. Why should an Idaho congressman be able to overturn the unanimous decision of an elected body which is simply expressing the will of the DC voters that elected it? For these reasons, I oppose this bill and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would actually encourage all those authorizing committees to get to work trying to implement this budget so the American people can see just how bad it is. I would be curious as to whether they are actually going to do it in the next couple of months. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong opposition to this budget conference report. I do agree with the gentleman on one issue, which is that the staff of the Budget Committee on both sides, Republican and Democrat, have worked very hard; but, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the product that is brought before us today is the wrong direction for America. We began with a House budget that was wrong for America, and we went to conference with a Senate budget that was wrong for America. It is not surprising, but it is still disappointing, that we come to the floor today with a budget that is wrong for America. Why do I say that? We are all entitled to our opinions, but we don't get to make up our own facts. The reality is, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the folks who are referees in this House, in this Congress, where people have competing opinions, they have said that this Republican budget will slow down the economy over the next couple of years. It is right here on page 3 of their report. Real GNP, real economic growth per person, would be lowered by as much as 0.6 percent under the specified paths than under the baseline 2016 to 2018 CBO budget estimates. Let's translate that. What that means is that, compared to what would happen in the economy without the Republican budget--if we didn't have this--this will make things worse. This will slow down economic growth. This means less economic growth per person in the United States of America. That is not me saying it, that is the nonpartisan budget experts saying it. So it is going to slow down economic growth, although we have good news, some good news in the economy, right. I mean, we have seen month after month now of positive economic growth. We would like to see the economy grow faster, and we would like to see it grow stronger, but we have seen over 61 consecutive months of positive economic growth. Why in the world would we want a budget that over the next couple of years slows down that economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office? But it gets worse than that because one of the chronic problems we have seen in our economy, Mr. Speaker, over the last many years--not just 2 or 3 or 4, but over decades--is this phenomenon where Americans are working harder than ever and they are more productive than ever, but their paychecks are flat. Their take-home pay is flat. You have rising worker productivity on the one hand; people are working harder than ever, but it is not translating into higher wages and benefits. Back about 30 or 40 years ago--we had a chart with rising worker productivity--guess what else was rising with it? It was worker wages. But, over the last 30 years, we have seen people working harder than ever, and productivity has gone up, but wages for most Americans have been pretty flat in real terms. The gain of that increased worker productivity has flowed dramatically and overwhelmingly to folks at the very top end of the economic ladder, and God bless them. But why would we want to bring a budget to the floor of the House that squeezes even tighter and harder the people who are working hard every day and not seeing their paychecks go up? How does their budget make life harder for most Americans? First of all, Mr. Speaker, it increases taxes on working families. They get rid of the bump up in the Child Tax Credit. They get rid of the strengthening of the Earned Income Tax Credit. They eliminate entirely the college deduction that helps families afford college in this era of high tuition rates; they get rid of that. They eliminate the Affordable Care Act tax credits, meaning millions of Americans will no longer be able to access affordable care. Students, they actually start charging students higher interest rates on their loans. Right now, a student in college doesn't have to pay interest on their loan while they are in college. Our Republican colleagues apparently think that $1 trillion of student debt is not enough. They want to charge them more. It is a fact under this budget. Seniors, they want to reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. It is not a secret. They have said they will do this. As a result, seniors with high prescription drug costs on Medicare will be paying lots more, and they will be paying higher copays for preventative health care under this Republican budget. Mr. Speaker, working families, students, and seniors are all squeezed even tighter. I will tell you who is not squeezed at all under this budget, the folks at the very top. This budget green-lights the Romney-Ryan tax plan. What does that plan propose? Let's cut the top tax rate for millionaires by one-third--by one-third. Let's take it down from 39 percent to the 28, 25 percent range. That is who gets a big break in their tax rates. While they are cutting tax rates for folks at the very top, what else are they cutting? They are cutting our investment in our kids' education. They are cutting our investment in science and research at places like NIH. They are cutting our investment in modernizing our infrastructure which has helped power our economy. Why? It is because they are cutting the portion of the budget we use to make those investments by 40 percent below the lowest level as a share of the economy since we have been keeping records in the 1950s. That is a disinvestment in America, so they are cutting those investments. I will tell you what they don't cut, Mr. Speaker. They don't cut one special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit, not one penny. Apparently, that corporate jet tax deduction? Oh, they really need it. Apparently, that special tax rate for hedge fund managers? They really need it because they don't want to eliminate any of those in order to reduce the deficit. They do apparently want to increase taxes on working families and cut our investment in education. Here is the sad part about it, Mr. Speaker. After all that, it still doesn't balance, not by a long shot. Here is the chart. I'm sorry we have to go through this math so many times, but I will tell you that the current chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Enzi, before he became chairman, talked about this budget accounting scam that is at the heart of the Republican budget and at the heart of the claim that they have a balanced budget because, you see, they claim that, at the end of the 10-year window, they are $33 billion in balance, but they also say they are eliminating the Affordable Care Act. Guess what, the budget relies on the same level of revenue as the Affordable Care Act. If you get rid of the Affordable Care Act in those revenues, you are not close to balance. I will tell you what else it doesn't take into account, the tax provisions. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that we had on this floor, just about 10 days ago, a Republican proposal to eliminate the estate tax for estates over $10 million. That was the overwhelming economic priority of our Republican colleagues, to get rid of the estate tax for estates over $10 million, about 5,500 people in this country per year. You can put more people on a big cruise ship. That added about $260 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Guess what, it wasn't accounted for in the Republican budget. If you did account for that in the other tax cut measures for special interests that are being brought to the floor, it is even further out of balance, so this is just Alice in Wonderland accounting. Mr. Speaker, we really should be going back to the drawing board. We haven't even talked about the whole sort of shell game being played with the OCO account, which is already having an impact on appropriations bills here in the House because our Republican colleagues are doing this year the exact opposite of what they said we should do just last year. Read the Republican's own budget conference committee report. Mr. Speaker, let me just close with respect to veterans because the reality is that the first bill coming to the floor based on this budget conference report for veterans and military construction, the Veterans of Foreign Wars says it is bad for veterans. It has a lower amount for our veterans than in the President's proposal. We believe we should be true to the values and priorities of this country, and we don't think that means giving folks at the very top, millionaires, another cut in their tax rate while disinvesting in the rest of America. Mr. Speaker, I must strongly oppose this Republican conference committee report because it really does take America down the wrong path, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the Republican leader, who mentioned the children of America, that if the children of America learn Republican math, we are going to be in real trouble because they won't be able to count. As the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget has said, this kind of budget approach that claims balance because they take the level of revenue from the Affordable Care Act, when at the same time say they are repealing the Affordable Care Act, I think most kids can figure out that that is a shell game, and we are going to be in real trouble if that is the basis of teaching math in our schools, not to mention the fact that we have got a budget here that is squeezing people who are really working hard while providing a green light to tax cuts for people at the very top. That is also not a set of priorities I think that we want to pass on to our children. We want an economy that works for everybody, an economy where everyone who works hard can get ahead. I don't see how we are going to get our kids ahead by providing tax cuts to folks at the top while cutting our kids' education and making them pay more for their college loans. That is a recipe for decline. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This budget does not reflect the priorities of the American people. If you ask most Americans what kind of economy they want, they would say they want an economy that is growing rapidly, with more shared prosperity. You don't get that kind of economy with trickle-down economics with the kind of theory that is embedded in the Republican budget. That theory is that if you provide tax rate cuts to people at the very top-- to millionaires--somehow the benefits are going to trickle down and lift everybody up. We tried that in the 2000s under George Bush. It didn't work. What happened--not surprisingly--is folks at the top who got tax cuts ended up with even more take-home income. Everybody else was either treading water or falling behind. Why we would want a budget based on a failed economic strategy is going to leave the American public scratching their heads. The approach we recommended was one where we provide more tax relief to hard-working Americans. We wanted to expand the provision for child and dependent tax credits so that people can make sure their kids are in a safe environment while they are at work and not have to break the family bank in order to do it. We want to invest in our kids' education; we want to invest in scientific research, and we want to pay for it by closing some of those tax breaks that encourage American corporations to ship American jobs and money overseas and getting rid of the special tax rates that hedge fund managers have that hard-working Americans don't. We proposed fixing a tax system that is rigged in favor of the special interests and the very powerful and changing in a way that provides additional help to people who are being squeezed and are in the middle or working their way into the middle. That is an economic plan that works for everybody in the country, not one that just works for people at the very top. What we saw just last week was the number one economic priority of our Republican colleagues was to eliminate the estate tax on estates above $10 million, help 5,500 Americans run up the deficit by $270 billion, and then come back and say, Hey, the deficit just went up by $270 billion because we provided an estate tax cut to estates $10 million and up. Now, let's cut our kids' education. Let's increase the amount we charge seniors for their prescription drugs. Let's raise the cost of student loans. Let's cut our investment in kids' education. That is what this Republican budget does. It is not that our colleagues don't believe in this failed theory, but you would think, at some point, reality would intrude, and people would say we need an economy that works for every American, not just a few. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. Let's start again in a way that really reflects the greatness of America. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize my constituent, Kenneth Miller, PhD, RN, CFNP, FAAN, FAANP, for his service as President this year of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). Dr. Miller has had an exemplary career of service with more than 44 years of nursing experience. He received his BSN from the University of Michigan in 1978, a Master's in Medical/Surgery Nursing in 1980, and a PhD in Clinical Nursing Research from the University of Arizona in 1983. Dr. Miller received his Family Nurse Practitioner post-master's certification from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in 1998. Prior to his term as AANP President, Dr. Miller served as the Associate Dean for Academic Administration at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He was also the Director of the School of Nursing for the University of Delaware and the Vice Dean for Internal Programs and Associate Dean for Research and Clinical Scholarship in the College of Nursing at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center. Before his tenure in academia, Dr. Miller held professorial positions at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and as Director of Clinical Nursing Research at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Miller also worked as a clinical nurse in medical centers and hospitals in California, Arizona and Michigan. In addition, he served as a Family Nurse Practitioner in New Mexico, Delaware and the District of Columbia. The American Association of Nurse Practitioners is a national professional membership organization representing 205,000 nurse practitioners nationally. Under Dr. Miller's tenure, AANP membership has grown to more than 57,000 members, making AANP the largest nurse practitioner organization in the world. Dr. Miller has helped lead nurse practitioners in transforming patient-centered health care and has made tremendous strides in ensuring that policy makers and the public understand the care that nurse practitioners provide to millions of Americans each year. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Miller on a successful term as President of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and in thanking him for the excellent care he has and continues to provide to his patients and the nurse practitioner profession.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.