Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astounding that within minutes-- minutes--of our being sworn in, our Republican colleagues want to pass a rule that will stack the deck in favor of trying to give another big tax cut not to the middle class, but to millionaires, the folks at the very top. That is what their budget does. What is equally astounding is that this economic theory of trickle- down economics crashed and burned in the real world between 2001 and 2008. Our Republican colleague says that if you give millionaires these tax cuts, they are going to spend them, and a little bit will trickle down to the middle class and people who aspire to the middle class and boost everybody up. That is not what happened. What happened? Sure, the folks who got the tax cuts at the top, they did better. Nobody else did. In fact, real wages went down. What went up? The deficit--and everybody has to pay for that deficit. Now, I heard the Speaker this morning say he wanted to deal with the issue of wage stagnation. That is what we should be focused on. We shouldn't be talking about tax cuts for the wealthy and a trickle-down theory. We should try to build this economy from the middle class out and from the bottom up. I am glad the Speaker said that because we are going to give him an opportunity to vote for something that will address wage stagnation. I am going to offer a motion at the end of this debate. It is called the CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act, and it addresses this issue. If you look back in the 1960s and 1970s, when workers were working hard, they got paid more, but beginning around 1979, they kept working hard, productivity kept going up, but their wages got flat. What happened during the same time? CEOs took care of themselves. Their pay started to go up and up and up. It used to be about 20 times that of the average worker. In other words, the CEO and the folks at the top got about 20 times what they were paying their employees, but as you can see, it has now shot up so that CEOs and the top guys get paid about 300 times what their workers are getting paid. We have a simple proposition: that corporations should not be able to deduct the bonuses and compensation for their CEOs and other executives over $1 million unless they are giving their employees a fair shake, a fair wage. Right? Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing that? Between 2007 and 2010, they took about $66 billion, thereabouts, in deductions for bonuses for performance pay when they were sometimes laying off employees and cutting their paychecks, so we say: ``Hey, okay, pay yourselves what you want, but if you want the taxpayers to allow you to deduct your bonuses and performance pay, for goodness' sakes, you had better be giving your employees a fair shake.'' Over time, that would close that gap in worker productivity and wages and do what the Speaker said he wanted to do this morning, which is deal with wage stagnation. Let's help the workers, not just the CEOs. Let's vote for the CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act.

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Actually, what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a Republican plan that actually cuts the top rate for folks at the top from 39 percent to 25 percent. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has said that will actually leave the middle class family--typical family--paying another $2,000, so that you can give the folks at the very top another tax break. When you increase the deficit, guess who pays the bill? Everybody, all the taxpayers do. So you give a tax break to the folks at the top, increase the deficit, and everybody else is left to pay the bill. That is not the right way to go. Vote for this motion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this omnibus. It is critical to avoid another unnecessary and wasteful government shutdown, and I strongly believe that we must do that without extraneous and harmful policy riders. The bill before us holds government operations hostage to a number of highly partisan, noxious policy riders. By proposing to repeal the so- called ``swaps push out rule'' enacted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, it caters to the demands of big banks and puts taxpayers on the hook for their risky decisions. It allows special interests to funnel more money into Congressional political party committees, dramatically increasing the limit from $129,600 to $777,600 per year, or over $1.5 million per election cycle. Putting these provisions together will simply breed additional public cynicism about Congress granting special favors to powerful special interests in exchange for increased political contributions. I also continue to oppose riders related to Guantanamo and those that meddle in the local business of the District of Columbia. The fact that this bill only funds the Department of Homeland Security through February is nothing more than a political stunt by my colleagues across the aisle. Instead of working to fix our broken immigration system, House Republicans have signaled that they are willing to shut down the Department of Homeland Security even though this will do nothing to prevent President Obama from expanding the deferred action program. This bill also provides $5 billion in funding for the deployment of an additional 1,500 American troops to Iraq and up to $500 million to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels. As I outlined in my statement on the NDAA, Congress should have had the opportunity to amend those provision. I do not want us to be dragged into Iraq War 2.0 or more deeply into the Syrian civil war. Without the inclusion of these measures, I would have been pleased to support a number of provisions in this bill. As a representative of many federal employees, I appreciate the one percent COLA for our dedicated federal workforce and pay adjustments for wage grade employees. I support the additional funding for the National Institutes of Health, although we must do much more to support medical research. The bill also increases funding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and provides emergency funding to address the ongoing Ebola crisis. It includes important funding for scientific research at NIST and the National Science Foundation, and rejects the House-passed rider that would have defunded climate change research. I support the investments in education, including Title I and IDEA, although more funding for these programs is necessary to support our nation's students. The bill also includes critical funding for infrastructure, including $2.1 billion to build new transit lines, $500 million for TIGER grants for projects of national significance, and $150 million to allow the Washington area Metro system to make recommended safety and performance improvements. This legislation also builds on efforts made in last year's MilCon-VA bill to end the claims backlog that continues to plague our VA regional offices, including the VA's Baltimore Regional Office. It includes $2.5 billion for the costs of processing disability claims--an increase of $40 million over the President's request and $69 million over last year's level. I am pleased that this bill provides $73 million in funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This will help provide Maryland with the necessary resources to implement the technology to automate criminal history and mental health records in our background check system. This legislation also fully funds many other important Department of Justice Programs, including $376 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and $430 million for Violence Against Women programs. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that no bill of this magnitude is perfect. However, I cannot in good conscience vote to roll back critical taxpayer protections and allow monied special interests to buy more influence in Congress. We should strip these damaging provisions from the bill and pass an omnibus that works on behalf of taxpayers and strengthens the middle class.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report for the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act. For the last 53 years, Congress has passed--and the President has signed into law--an annual Defense Authorization bill to provide critical resources our Armed Forces need to maintain the best military in the world. While I recognize that there are many important programs that are authorized in this legislation, this NDAA also contains many major policy decisions affecting our country and our armed forces. Unfortunately, Congress was not allowed to consider a single amendment dealing with very consequential policy issues to this 1648-page bill. The NDAA Conference Report also authorizes funding to deploy an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq. I support the core pillars of the President's plan to fight ISIS, including the use of American surveillance, intelligence assets and air power against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria and the arming and training of the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces to stop the ISIS advances in Iraq. I also believe we should supply weapons to those groups in Syria, such as the Syrian Kurds, who have consistently fought ISIS, and whose priority is to defeat ISIS. However, I believe the Congress should make it clear that American ground troops should not be used in a combat role in Iraq or Syria. The President has asserted that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (Public Law 107-40) provides the Executive with broad authority to take all military action necessary in both Iraq and Syria to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. While the President has indicated that he does not intend to deploy U.S. ground forces into combat, there is nothing in current law to prevent him from doing so. Congressman McGovern, Congressman Jones, and I asked the House Rules Committee to allow us to offer an amendment to ban the use of U.S. forces in ground combat in Iraq, with the exception of rescue operations for Americans. Unfortunately, this request was denied. The NDAA Conference Report also provides a two-year authorization to deploy American troops to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels. In September, a majority in Congress voted to temporarily authorize preparation for such a mission for a short period ending December 11th. This bill extends that authorization for two more years and is written so that the four defense committees can exclusively decide how much funding should be allocated for this mission. Congressman Dent and I led a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner urging him to give us the opportunity to vote on that provision. We also presented an amendment to the House Rules Committee which would have presented this authority. Once again, we were not provided the opportunity to vote on this measure. My primary concern with the proposal to arm the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian opposition is that it will have unintended negative consequences that will not serve our ultimate goal of defeating ISIS. First, the primary objective of these Sunni Islamist fighters is the defeat of Assad and his Alawite dominated regime--not the defeat of ISIS. Since the start of the war there have been shifting alliances among these Sunni Islamist forces that include the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, different elements of the Free Syrian Army, the Islamist Front, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, among others. Their common cause and overriding objective is defeating Assad. Indeed, the commander of the Syria Revolutionaries' Front, Jamal Maarouf, one of the most militarily proficient commanders of the FSA, recently said that, ``It's clear that I'm not fighting against al-Qaeda. This is a problem outside of Syria's border, so it's not our problem. I don't have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria.'' While there is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, he does not pose the same threat to the United States as ISIS, and his forces have recently been battling ISIS. At this point, arming fighters whose primary purpose is to weaken Assad has one unintended result-- strengthening ISIS. Indeed, I fear that the arms we provide to the so- called Syrian opposition are more likely to end up in the hands of ISIS or al Nusra. I also have significant concerns about other measures in the NDAA Conference Report. I was disappointed that it includes a provision to continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. It also removes the prohibition on transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen that was included in the SASC-reported bill. Despite my overall opposition to this legislation, it does authorize many important programs. I was pleased that the Women's Small Business Procurement Parity Act, S. 2481, was included in the final Conference Report. This language provides much needed guidance to assist federal agencies in reaching the goal of awarding 5 percent of federal contracts to women-owned small businesses. Today's bill also restores more than $818 million in cuts made to military readiness accounts. This will allow our military to invest in critical repairs and upgrades to many mission-critical facilities such as electrical and fire protection system upgrades. I am also encouraged that this bill builds on a number of provisions passed in last year's NDAA and continues to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. In particular, it would eliminate the so-called ``good soldier defense'' in court-martial proceedings, prohibiting a soldier from using good military character as a defense in a sexual assault case. These proceedings should be based on the specific evidence presented in the case. Finally, I am pleased that the bill contains many long-delayed public lands conservation measures to protect more than one million acres of public land, including 245,000 of new wilderness. While I support each of these measures, the fact remains that without the amendments I proposed, the bill could create a very slippery slope that would drag American troops even more deeply into Syrian war and renewed conflict in Iraq. For those reasons, I regretfully am unable to vote in favor of this year's NDAA Conference Report.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It is an honor to stand with the California delegation tonight in saluting two extraordinary Members of the United States Congress, George Miller and Henry Waxman, two friends, two individuals who have been an inspiration to me and so many other Americans. What is extraordinary about these two men is that they greeted every day of their 40 years here in the United States Congress as if it were their very first day, with the same determination, with the same drive, with the same passion to make our country a little better place than they found it. Make no mistake, they came here on a mission to build a more just, a more inclusive Nation, where every American has a fair shot at the American Dream, and through that determination and that perseverance, they succeeded. If you look around the country today, in almost every aspect of American life, these two gentlemen have left their mark, from health care to education to workers' rights to protecting our environment. They have changed the arc of American history. One quality really stands out when I think about both these individuals: fearlessness and moral courage and a willingness to take on the most powerful special interests on behalf of the common good, no matter the personal risk, no matter the political cost. They have been warriors for the public good, sometimes happy warriors, sometimes just tough warriors, but always standing up for what is best in America. It is the job of those of us who remain here to dedicate ourselves to carry on the work that these gentlemen carried out for the love of their country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014.'' This bill is nothing more than a political stunt by my colleagues across the aisle. It seeks to restrict the President from using his executive authority--much in the same way that President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush have done before him--to further secure the border and prioritize deporting felons over families. In fact, over the last 50 years, every President has used executive authority to take action on immigration, including six Republican Presidents. This bill would not only be limited to the President's most recent use of executive authority but would also prevent the Administration from granting deferred action to Dreamers who are currently eligible for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) but have not yet received it. This would effectively end the DACA program--which has already provided temporary protection for 700,000 individuals who were brought to the United States as children--and would subject hundreds of thousands Dreamers to deportation. This legislation is so broad that the Administration would not even be able to grant deferred action from deportation to family members of U.S. Military troops. Most importantly, this bill does nothing to address our broken immigration system. It has been more than 520 days since the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill yet Speaker Boehner has refused to let us vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, let the People's House vote on this important measure and let democracy work its will. Why is this House so afraid of a little democracy?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the important work of the Ukrainian Service of the Voice of America. VOA's Ukrainian Service has been a crucial source of news and information for the people of Ukraine for 65 years. Throughout Russia's campaign of aggression against Ukraine, VOA's Ukrainian Service has been an important source of news, information and discussion about the year-long crisis. Every week, VOA's Ukrainian Service reaches millions of people in Ukraine and through its daily reporting on U.S. politics, foreign policy, social issues, business, culture and the arts, VOA provides comprehensive, accurate and authoritative information that Ukrainians can employ in strengthening their nascent democracy, market economy and independent statehood. I congratulate VOA Ukrainian for 65 years of service to the Ukrainian people and for all it is doing to strengthen ties between the U.S. and Ukraine.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the incredible service of the Dean of the House of Representatives, John Dingell. In his 59 years in the House, John Dingell has experienced dizzying twists in national politics and turns in world events. And through it all, he succeeded in building a consistent record of achievements true to his core principle of social justice. If you rely on Medicare--or plan to in your retirement--you can thank John Dingell. After fighting for its creation, he was the one presiding over the House for its historic passage in 1965. If you've benefited from the Affordable Care Act, you can thank John Dingell for his pivotal role in passing this landmark legislation, and for continuing his father's fight to make affordable health care available to all Americans. If you've benefitted from a safe workplace or fair pay, you can thank John Dingell for being a champion of the American worker and a tireless advocate for policies to help our businesses create jobs and our middle class get ahead. And if you simply enjoy outdoor recreation and the ability to breathe clean air and drink clean water, you can thank John Dingell for his vision. He brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation that protects our environment. On a personal note, I want to thank John Dingell for his wisdom and good counsel over the years. His guidance and effort were essential to passing the DISCLOSE Act in the House in 2010. That bill would have required groups spending millions of dollars on political campaign ads to disclose to voters who is bankrolling them. Unfortunately, the bill failed by one vote in a filibuster in the Senate. If John Dingell had been in the Senate, he would have gotten it passed. Thank you John Dingell for all that you've done for our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, it is abundantly clear to me that what our country needs most right now--and what we really should be voting on today--is comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform that encourages investment at home, drives job creation and delivers broadly shared prosperity to all Americans. Instead, we are voting to retroactively extend a group of over 50, mostly business-related, temporary tax provisions that expired at the end of last year--until the end of this year. Which is now about four weeks away. That's what today's legislation does. It retroactively takes these 50-odd expired provisions back to the beginning of the year, and then extends them forward for the next four weeks, at which point they will expire again and we'll be right back to square one. Let me be clear: I support a number of these expiring provisions-- like the R&D Tax Credit--and think they should be made permanent as part of comprehensive tax reform. And there are additional steps I think we should be taking--like extending the Health Care Tax Credit for trade-displaced workers and older workers whose pensions have been taken over by the PBGC. And ending the egregious practice of so-called corporate inversions once and for all. I am reluctantly supporting this bill because, without it, many individuals and businesses would see an effective tax increase. But Mr. Speaker, at some point, we're going to have to stop kicking the can down the road. From my perspective, that moment can't come soon enough.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the defense authorization bill, is now 1,648 pages, and we are being told on the floor of the House that we either vote for the whole thing or nothing because we are not given a chance for any amendments in between. There are some hugely consequential decisions being made for our national defense in this bill on issues of war and peace. It was just last September the President increased the number of American troops in Iraq to help train and equip the Iraqi and Kurdish forces there. Mr. McGovern, Mr. Jones, and I have a bipartisan amendment saying that U.S. ground forces in Iraq should not be engaged in combat operations going forward. The President has asserted authority under the AUMF. That is a blank check. We don't think there should be a blank check for the executive. This body should vote to make it clear that U.S. forces can't be involved in another ground war in Iraq. There is also a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, myself, and others that says we should vote on the question of whether we should now arm the so-called moderate Syrian rebels for 2 years at a price of $500 million or up. Now, whether you are for or against it, we should have a vote. Mr. Speaker, I happen to think it is a bad idea. We are not going to be able to successfully micromanage the Syrian civil war. The target of those forces is not ISIS. So in the process, we are actually going to be inadvertently strengthening ISIS. But whether you agree with me on that or not, for goodness' sake, we should have an amendment that has this body make a choice. That is what we are here for, I thought, making important policy decisions for the country on questions of war and peace. We owe it to our troops, and we owe it to the American people to actually debate and vote on these consequential decisions instead of a 1,600-plus page bill that comes to the floor and doesn't give us that opportunity. So since we don't have that opportunity, I am going to vote ``no'' on the defense authorization bill. I don't like to do that, but it is irresponsible and reckless for this House not to vote on these important issues separately.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking my colleague, Ranking Member Levin, for yielding but, most importantly, for his partnership on this important bipartisan legislation. I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Chairman Camp, thank you for all of your efforts and diligence in getting us to this point. To our fellow cosponsors--Congressman Crenshaw, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, Congressman Sessions, and others--thank you for all you have done to get us to this point. To our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Senator Bob Casey and Senator Richard Burr, this has been a team effort. Mr. Speaker, like Congressman Crenshaw, I want to especially recognize and honor those families from across the country who actually worked so hard over so many years to get us to this point. Many of those families are in the gallery today. Others are watching from around the country. At a time when there is deep cynicism about the ability or lack of ability of Congress and the government to function, they broke through that cynicism and are an example to others of what we can do and can accomplish by working together. Because of their efforts, as we heard, we have 380 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, in the House and 74 United States Senators, Republicans and Democrats. With that broad bipartisan and bicameral support, everyone worked together to get to this point. We have heard what this does. It provides an opportunity for families with kids or other members of the families with disabilities to put aside a little money, tax free, to help defray some of the extra medical costs that are incurred by those families. It is a benefit available to families who are sending their kids to college, and we should make sure that we provide that kind of benefit to families who are trying to make sure their loved ones are cared for. That is what this does. It is about equity. It is about fairness. It is about making sure that every child has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. It is a time-honored American value, and that is why this has attracted such broad support. Mr. Speaker, no single piece of legislation--nothing we can do here-- can single-handedly eliminate the additional medical and financial burdens faced by families living and loving and caring for their children with disabilities every day, but this act, this ABLE Act, can help ease that financial burden and can help assist families in some small way in ensuring that their children receive the love and care they deserve. I thank my colleagues for coming together on this important effort, and I hope it gets through the Senate and to the President's desk, where it can be signed soon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, everybody, for being a part of this effort.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to share with my colleagues inspiring information about Crittenton Services of Greater Washington, a life-changing organization serving low-income teenage girls in public and charter schools in Montgomery County, Maryland and Washington, DC. On November 20th, at a gala celebrating its 126th anniversary, Crittenton announced an important expansion of its programs and honored several area women who have displayed leadership on issues crucial to the healthy development of teen girls. I am delighted that one of the honorees is our colleague, and a member of the Maryland Congressional delegation, my good friend Rep. Donna Edwards. Karla Silvestre, Director of Community Engagement at Montgomery College and with whom my staff and I have worked over many years, also received well-deserved recognition, as did Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO of CTIA-- the Wireless Association, and Gloria L. Blackwell, Vice President of Fellowships, Grants, and Global Programs at the American Association of University Women. Each of them has my heartiest congratulations. Earlier this year, with the support of Montgomery County and the District of Columbia Department of Health, Crittenton tripled the number of its programs for low-income teen girls. As a result, Crittenton, under the outstanding leadership of Executive Director Pamela Jones, now provides services at 11 DC schools and six Montgomery County schools, serving over 400 middle and high school girls. The objectives of the programs are to reduce pregnancies, births, and sexually transmitted infections among teen girls, ages 14 to 19, and increase their motivation and aspirations to succeed in high school and complete post-secondary education. Over the course of the school year, Crittenton presents structured curricula that are science-based, age appropriate, and medically accurate. In 26 sessions, the programs teach girls about healthy relationships with their peers, dating partners, and parents; reproductive health, nutrition, and fitness; and life options, including post-secondary education and careers. Through active learning activities--role-play, games, or group discussion--Crittenton helps the girls acquire ``real world life skills'' such as communication, conflict resolution, assertiveness, and negotiation; managing emotions, impulses, frustration, and stress; and goal-setting, planning, problem- solving, and decision-making. In addition, to help participants envision a future and become increasingly motivated to achieve that future, Crittenton organizes out-of-school enrichment activities that expose them to college and careers. But the programs' ``secret sauce'' is the relationship that program leaders form with the girls. Program leaders are culturally competent, well trained, highly experienced youth development specialists. They create a welcoming environment and a ``safe space'' that inspires the girls to speak openly with a caring adult and each other; they talk with the girls honestly and non-judgmentally; and they model positive behavior. A central component of Crittenton's programs is a focus on the ``whole girl'' and her future, with a goal of heightening her awareness of life options. Through the experiences the programs provide, girls learn to recognize and value their gifts and develop invaluable life and leadership skills. Most importantly, they develop a belief in their ability to succeed, even in challenging situations. Crittenton was originally established in Washington, DC in 1887. Its mission has evolved from rescuing young girls from sex trafficking and exploitation to providing a residential home as a safe haven with caring trusted adults for single mothers and their babies. As society and the need for services changed, so has Crittenton. The Florence Crittenton Home was sold in 1983 and the organization launched a series of successful multi-year programs for teen girls and young women. Today, Crittenton Services of Greater Washington provides three key programs. SNEAKERS (Self-efficacy, Nurturance, Expectations, Assertiveness, Knowledge, Empowerment, Responsibility, and Success), a program that enables vulnerable girls who are navigating the challenges of adolescence to thrive; PEARLS (Parenting, Education, and Responsive Life Skills), a program that enables pregnant and parenting teens to succeed as students and parents; and 4C'ING the Future (Crittenton College and Career Connection), a college and career access program that engages parents and prepares 8th grade girls to become the first in their families to attend college. For many years, Crittenton's programs have been changing the trajectories of teen girls' lives. Crittenton girls are avoiding risky, unhealthy behaviors; acquiring social and emotional skills that are essential for academic and life success; becoming motivated learners who will graduate from high school; and using their voices, time, and talent to serve others. They also have a vision--and a plan--to achieve their academic, personal and professional goals. I am pleased to share with my colleagues this wonderful example of the invaluable contributions that non-profit organizations make to their communities. I extend my gratitude and appreciation to Crittenton for all it does to change lives and wish it a very happy anniversary.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. Each year, observers use the day as a time to remember those who have lost their lives as a result of a road crash. It is also a time to recommit ourselves to the goal of changing behaviors that lead to driver accidents. The theme of this year's observance is ``Speed Kills.'' Each day around the world, more than 500 children are killed on the way to and from school because of the actions of unsafe drivers. Indeed, road crashes are the leading cause of death for people from ages 15 to 29. This annual World Day of Remembrance provides road traffic victims and their families with an opportunity to remind the world of these troubling statistics and to have their voices heard. I ask my colleagues to join me today in remembering those who have lost their lives or were injured as a result of a road crash, to console the families of those affected, and to commit ourselves to the goal of making roads safe for everyone around the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Daughters of Penelope, who for 85 years have been working to improve the status and well-being of women and their families in this country and around the world. By promoting the ideals of ancient Greece including civic engagement and good citizenship through community service and philanthropy, the Daughters of Penelope have helped to raise awareness for a number of civic and humanitarian causes. From its financial support for breast cancer research to its assistance to victims and communities affected by natural disasters to its work in support of affordable and dignified housing for this nation's senior citizens, the members of the Daughters of Penelope have answered the call of those in need for more than a half century. So it is with great appreciation that I rise to recognize the work and members of the Daughters of Penelope for their commitment to volunteerism, for their charity and for all they have done over these many years to advance the standing of women around the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Michael A. McMurphy, a longtime resident of Potomac, Maryland, for his lifetime of dedicated service to family, community and country, and I offer my heartfelt congratulations to him on the occasion of his retirement. Michael McMurphy served honorably for ten years in active duty in the United States Air Force following graduation from the Air Force Academy, after which he continued serving our Nation in the Air Force Reserves, receiving several commendations for his outstanding contributions. After earning advanced degrees from St. Mary's University and the University of Texas School of Law, he worked in the Office of Chief Counsel for the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations in Tennessee from 1979 to 1983, where he supported the Department's Uranium Enrichment Enterprise, among other critical areas. In 1983, he joined COGEMA, Inc. in Bethesda, Maryland as its Secretary and General Counsel, was subsequently promoted to Vice President, and then elected President and Chief Executive Officer in 1988. After COGEMA was merged into the AREVA Group in 2001, he became President and Chief Executive Officer of AREVA NC Inc., and then President of AREVA Inc. in 2003. In 2008, Mr. McMurphy was appointed Senior Executive Vice President of AREVA's worldwide Front End Business Group, located in Paris, France, and returned to the U.S. in 2013, rejoining AREVA Inc. as Executive Vice President through 2014. Over his tenure, he has won the admiration of his many colleagues and peers and has served on the boards of directors of numerous companies and industry organizations. For his exceptional contributions to U.S.-France relations and to the important commercial ties between our two countries, he was recognized by the President of France with an appointment to the rank of Chevalier, or knight, in the Ordre national du Merite and then, in 2012, to the rank of Chevalier in the Legion d'honneur, that country's highest civilian honor. Aside from his professional accomplishments, his greatest achievement, according to his sons Matthew and Kevin, is his love for his wife Maureen--``that's a thing that makes us very proud . . . that holds the family together, and our family has always been close.'' In 2008, Michael and Maureen suffered a tragic loss when their son Patrick, who moved to New York City to pursue his dream of acting, died at the age of 23 from severe head injuries sustained from an accidental fall. Michael and Maureen established the Patrick Michael McMurphy Memorial Foundation in his honor, and they have since done some wonderful work through the foundation to promote the arts, especially theater, film and music. The foundation has benefited the Stella Adler Studio of Acting, where Patrick completed his studies, and is supporting promising young people who would not otherwise be able to pursue the arts with ``life changing'' scholarships, mentoring and counseling. Michael delighted in his children; his sons fondly recall the sense of humor and commitment with which Michael insisted on playing the part of Cub Scout ``Den Mother,'' an unusual role for a dad in the 1980s, to spend more time with his boys. ``We were proud to be the only boys we knew who had a dad for a Den Mother,'' they have said. Michael loves children as he thinks they only bring joy and humor to his life, and now Michael's joy will be spending greater quality time with his three young grandchildren, perhaps outfitting them with Chuck Taylor high-top All-Star basketball shoes--shoes that bring him back happy memories of his late son, who wore them often. I thank Michael for his many fine contributions, especially to the business and civic vitality of Maryland, and I wish him much happiness in this new phase of his life.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to today's legislation to grant automatic approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, bypassing the legal review process. Today's bill grants immediate authority to Canadian company TransCanada to ``construct, connect, operate, and maintain'' the pipeline as described in their 2012 application to the State Department. However, as the bill itself acknowledges, there are still outstanding issues with that application. Notably, there is no legal route through Nebraska due to an ongoing court case over private property rights and eminent domain. This bill does nothing to resolve that case. It gives blanket approval without knowing what the pipeline route will look like in Nebraska. I am also deeply concerned that tar sands oil, which would be transported in the pipeline, is exempt from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that is used to respond to leaks and accidents. If there is an accident along this pipeline, taxpayers will be on the hook for cleanup. We need to close that loophole and ensure that the American public is not bearing the risks for TransCanada's pipeline. The State Department continues to review the 2.5 million comments it has received on this project and is awaiting a final route from Nebraska to make its determination on whether this project is in the best interest of the American people. We should allow that process to continue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude and appreciation to Barry Bergey, who retires this month as Director of Folk and Traditional Arts at the National Endowment for the Arts after a distinguished 29-year tenure. Mr. Bergey's predecessor at the NEA, Dan Sheehy, spoke of him as follows: ``Barry grew up in the picture postcard town of New Haven, Missouri, on the banks of the Missouri River, population 2,000. His father was a minister, and Barry once recalled how sitting through the same sermon two times each Sunday prepared him for the many meetings he would sit through during his government career. After working for a time at Washington University of St. Louis, he found the professional love of his life--Missouri's rich store of traditions and the artists who maintained them. He became the state's first folk arts coordinator. His congenial persona, his cultural knowledge, and his dedication to serving grassroots people and their most cherished traditions caught the attention of Bess Lomax Hawes, then director of the National Endowment for the Arts' budding Folk Arts Program. Barry was hired by the NEA as a senior arts specialist in 1985 and became the program's fourth Director in 2001, following Alan Jabbour, Hawes and Daniel Sheehy. With 29 years of service to his credit, he is the longest- serving folk and traditional arts staff member.'' Mr. Bergey absorbed the values of folk and traditional artists during his upbringing and worked to preserve and promote them throughout his career. With Julia and Jim Olen, he produced ``I'm Old but I'm Awfully Tough,'' a recording of field documentation made in the Ozark Region of Missouri and Arkansas in 1975. As State Folk Arts Coordinator at the Missouri Cultural Heritage Center based at the University of Missouri- Columbia from 1983-85, he initiated a model statewide traditional arts apprenticeship program and a statewide touring and performance series. He also curated a touring exhibition on a 19th century housebarn in rural Franklin County near New Haven, Missouri, where he grew up. Mr. Bergey founded the Missouri Friends of the Folk Arts, an organization that sponsored the annual Frontier Folklife Festival at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and produced The Missouri Tradition, a public radio program. He also taught courses on the blues and on American folk music at Washington University in St. Louis. In addition to managing NEA grants on folk and traditional arts, Mr. Bergey directed the NEA National Heritage Fellowships, the premiere American lifetime honors for individual accomplishments in folk and traditional arts. He provided guidance and support for folk arts infrastructure and statewide apprenticeship programs, as well as technical assistance in the field. Mr. Bergey urged support for many recommended applicants, recognizing that even a small grant could make a difference to folk arts projects and that an organization could leverage NEA support when seeking funding from other organizations and donors. Mr. Bergey's international leadership includes service as consultant to the Center for U.S.-China Arts Exchange on a long-term project to conserve traditional arts and minority culture in Yunan Province, China; author of a chapter on music and public policy in the United States and Canada in the Garland Encyclopedia of World Music; and service on the U.S. delegation for the UNESCO Intergovernmental Meetings of Experts to Draft a Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, the UNESCO Inter-American Committee on Culture of the Organization of American States in 2003, and the U.S. delegation to UNESCO to draft a Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005. Joe Wilson, who served as Chairman of the National Council for the Traditional Arts in Silver Spring, Maryland, described Mr. Bergey's service as follows: ``During his years as a folklorist and collector, Barry sought out those the Good Book calls `even the least of these little Ones.' He understood that the genes for creativity were spread wide, and knew it was his duty to reach into the places where the poor and ragged people dwelled. He was gracious and good to all who came calling, and understood that it was his duty to be certain that his branch of government was fair to all its citizens. He honored the taxpayers by being careful in the expenditure of funds. In an influential place and at an important time, he lifted artists up, all artists, and made them better understood. His reach has been great, and his grasp magnificent.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Barry for his extraordinary service to the National Endowment for the Arts and for his outstanding contributions to our cultural heritage, and in wishing him, his wife Jean, and his children Claire and Matthew all the best in the coming years.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to congratulate WAMU 88.5's ``The Big Broadcast'' on its 50th anniversary and to celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments and career of my constituent, Ed Walker, one of the most respected radio broadcasters in generations. Mr. Walker's distinguished career spans over 50 years as a broadcaster, most recently as the outstanding host since 1990 of The Big Broadcast. Through The Big Broadcast, Mr. Walker has kept alive and shared with new generations the classic radio shows of a bygone era--shows like ``The Lone Ranger,'' ``Gunsmoke'' and ``Fibber McGee.'' The art form in these broadcasts was magnificent, of the highest quality, and truly innovative. In addition to entertaining us, they served a unique role in American society by uniting us with imagery that one finds only in radio, featuring the great writing and talent of the performers, and sharing unique perspectives. Families would crowd around the radio listening for the latest episodes and waiting to learn of the latest heroics or antics of their favorite characters. In the Big Broadcast, Mr. Walker not only brought all of this extraordinary material to us week after week, but put it in context and served as our tour guide through decades of American history as portrayed through the wonderful radio broadcasts. Mr. Walker was appropriately recognized in 2009 by the Radio Hall of Fame for his lifetime of achievements, placed alongside the greats that include Bob Hope and Abbott & Costello. I am pleased and honored to represent him in the U.S. House of Representatives. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Walker on his distinguished contributions to radio and to our cultural heritage.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I support the core pillars of the President's plan to fight ISIS--the use of American surveillance, intelligence assets and air power to support the ground operations of the Iraqi army and Kurdish fighters in Iraq, and to strike ISIS military equipment, troop concentrations, and command and control in Syria. I also believe we should supply weapons to those groups in Syria, such as the Syrian Kurds, who have consistently fought ISIS, and whose priority is to defeat ISIS. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to revise the existing 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force to more clearly support these objectives, but to also ensure that U.S. ground forces are not engaged in combat in Iraq or Syria. My one concern with the Administration's plan relates to the proposal to arm the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian opposition. I believe that it is a well-intentioned proposal that will have unintended negative consequences that will not serve our ultimate goal of defeating ISIS. First, the primary objective of these Sunni Islamist fighters is the defeat of Assad and his Alawite dominated regime--not the defeat of ISIS. Since the start of the war there have been shifting alliances among these Sunni Islamist forces that include the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, different elements of the Free Syrian Army, the Islamist Front, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, among others. Their common cause and overriding objective is defeating Assad. Indeed, the commander of the Syria Revolutionaries' Front, Jamal Maarouf, one of the most militarily proficient commanders of the FSA, recently said that, ``It's clear that I'm not fighting against al-Qaeda. This is a problem outside of Syria's border, so it's not our problem. I don't have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria.'' While there is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, he does not pose the same threat to the United States as ISIS, and his forces have recently been battling ISIS. At this point, arming fighters whose primary purpose is to weaken Assad has one unintended result--strengthening ISIS. Indeed, I fear that the arms we provide to the so-called Syrian opposition are more likely to end up in ISIS hands than to be used against ISIS terrorists. There is one group within Syria that has been battling ISIS from the start, and that is the Syrian Kurds. We should provide material support to these Kurdish fighters in Syria. We should also continue our efforts to get the Sunni tribesmen in Iraq and Syria to take up the fight against ISIS. The President and his team deserve great credit for helping to push former Prime Minister Maliki from power. He ruled Iraq, not as a nationalist Iraqi leader, but as a Shia strongman. That sectarian approach alienated the Sunni population in Iraq, and made them more open to tolerating the rise of ISIS. With the emergence of a more inclusive Iraqi government, we must work with all parties to assure Sunni tribesman that their interests are better served by a united Iraq than by ISIS. That is why the President's emphasis on a political component to this strategy is so important.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor in support of H. Res. 707, a resolution condemning all forms of anti-Semitism. I also rise to spotlight the troubling and rising tide of hate crimes against Jews that has recently begun sweeping the globe. There have been violent attacks against Jews in the Middle East, death threats in Latin America, synagogues fire-bombed in Europe and the desecration of the property of Jews in North Africa. World leaders have spoken out against these acts of violence and condemned those responsible. The resolution I helped to introduce expresses that same sentiment by unequivocally condemning all forms of anti-Semitism and urging the secretary of state to maintain as a foreign policy priority of the United States the fight against anti- Semitism in all of its forms. The resolution also recognizes that condemnation alone will do little without the added threat of strong and effective laws to back it up. The resolution urges governments around the world to ensure that adequate laws are in place to monitor and punish those responsible for anti-Semitic violence and hate crimes. Today I stand with my colleagues on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in solidarity with all those around the world who will not permit these hate crimes to pass without comment and who believe that acts of religiously and ethnically motivated violence against one of us is an act perpetrated against all of us.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering once again a range of bills to give away public resources to Big Oil, strip environmental and public health protections, and prioritize drilling over all other uses, including recreation and conservation, on federal lands. Let's look at the facts. Oil and gas production has reached near historic highs in the United States. Our dependence on foreign oil has dropped from 57 percent in 2008 to 29 percent today. The provisions in this bill--which would block the proposed carbon standard to protect public health, order federal agencies to pretend that climate change has no impact on our communities, and limit oversight on drilling projects on federal lands--will not improve our energy security. They will endanger our health and resources. There is nothing new in today's debate. This package includes the same old ideas that the Majority has been pushing, without result, since 2011. Rather than working together for the American people, they are recycling the same partisan agenda. Our constituents deserve better. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So it repeals that--no effort to replace that. So it adds $26 billion to the deficit, just that provision. Not only that, but it repeals it going forward, and it also gives a rebate going backwards. So a company, Medtronic, which is right now moving its tax address overseas to avoid its tax obligations to the American people, is going to get a $200 million plus interest tax bonus. So here is this bill in a nutshell: do nothing to boost the middle class.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for all his good work on these issues. Just to underscore what he said with respect to Mr. Davis' proposal, we would love to have that proposal on veterans come before the floor as a stand-alone bill. Of course it has been wrapped into a much larger package that has nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with rewarding special interests at the expense of middle class families and taxpayers. It is a continuation of the failed strategy that responds to every economic challenge with more tax breaks to corporations and more breaks to folks at the very top of the economic ladder, the old, failed trickle-down theory of economics. There is nothing to raise the minimum wage, nothing to achieve pay equity for women, nothing to invest in America's infrastructure or our education system. Instead, it is a collection of tax cuts that together would add $572 million to the deficit over the next 10 years--no attempt to offset that cost. That is a lot of work in one afternoon, to add over half a trillion dollars to the deficit, totally in violation of the Republican budget that was brought to the floor. Nor is this a bill that attempts to reform the Tax Code. I have great respect for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and he did a credible effort in coming up with a reform plan. It wasn't perfect, lots of things that a lot of people don't like, but it was a credible effort. This bill takes us in the opposite direction. When the chairman introduced that bill, the Speaker of this House ran away faster than anybody else from that proposal, and this proposal runs away from it as well. Let me give you one example. The reform bill that was proposed by Mr. Camp repealed bonus depreciation. This bill adds $270 billion to the deficit by making bonus depreciation permanent. Mr. Camp's proposal was revenue-neutral in the first 10 years. This one adds over half a trillion dollars to the deficit, and it doesn't close a single corporate tax loophole. Look, if we are going to provide over a half a trillion dollars in tax breaks to large corporations, you would think that our Republican colleagues would at least deal with the issue of inversions, this sweep we see toward more and more corporations changing their address offshore to avoid their tax obligations to the American people. But, no, nothing to deal with inversions. In fact, this bill rewards a number of companies that have recently engaged in inversions. I want to call attention to section 701 of the bill because it says a lot about the priorities reflected on the floor today. That section repeals the excise tax paid by medical device companies that was put in place to help finance health care reform.