Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So just to wrap this up, because I hope people will focus on this, the bottom-line message of this is: sorry to see you leave our shores, but you know what? As a good-bye present, we are going to hand you $200 million in tax breaks. That sums up the problems with this bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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 Camp repealed bonus depreciation.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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, to keep the government open, the House is considering a continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 124) that permits government agencies to continue spending at the 2014 level through December 11, 2014. As a result, it allows a rate of overseas contingency operations spending at the Department of Defense, Department of State, and other agencies that if sustained over the entire fiscal year would total $92 billion. This sum exceeds what the Administration requested for overseas contingency operations for 2015 by $26 billion. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and I agree that this bill should not be interpreted as endorsing the expansion of overseas contingency operations spending above what our military commanders say is needed to support our troops engaged in war operations. Congress will revisit the full-year funding needs for overseas contingency operations at a future date, including whatever resources may be necessary to counter emerging threats, including those ISIL poses. Over the course of the CR period, the Administration should spend OCO funding at a rate that will still allow for full-year funding at no higher than the level military commanders say is needed for 2015. The OCO budget has been misused to get around discretionary funding caps over the years. Billions of dollars of non-war related activities have been funded in the OCO budget. For 2014, Congress shifted $9 billion of non-war activities into the OCO budget so it could free up funds within the budget caps. Over 2001 through 2014, Pentagon OCO cost reports indicate that $71 billion of non-war funding was provided through war appropriations. This is a problem that both Chairman Ryan and I have been looking at in the Budget Committee. We both agree that the OCO budget should only be used to fund those requirements that are related to the transitory, non-recurring costs of war activities. In fact, the Budget Committee adopted report language as part of the budget resolution affirming that goal. It says, ``Abuse of the OCO/GWOT cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. The Budget Committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities with respect to the use of the OCO/GWOT designation in the FY 2015 budget process, and it will 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.'' We should provide our military and diplomatic corps all the resources they need to carry out the important missions the country gives them. However, we should not use the OCO budget as a back-door mechanism to get around discretionary funding caps. The continuing resolution gives the Administration the spending authority needed to keep the government open and to give the necessary resources to support those engaged in operations overseas. It does not give the Administration a blank check to finance non-war activities. In the coming months when the House considers the final full-year appropriation for overseas contingency operations, I am committed to working with Chairman Ryan to ensure that funds appropriated in the OCO budget will only be used for war-related costs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of my constituent Kevie Niland who recently retired after 34 years of service to the United States House of Representatives. Kevie came to the House in 1980 to be a constituent service coordinator for Congressman Miller, beginning a long career of service to the American people. She later moved to the Clerk's office, starting as an administrative assistant before becoming Assistant Clerk to the Official Reporters in 1995. Four years later, she was named Reading Clerk, and then, in 2009, she took the office of Deputy Chief of Legislative Operations for the House of Representatives. Kevie served under seven Speakers of the House, from Tip O'Neill to John Boehner, and has had a front seat for many historic and spirited debates in this Chamber. I have encouraged her to write a book, but she has responded, ``No one would believe it.'' Her extraordinary efforts to record and support the work of the House makes our actions open and transparent to all American citizens and holds each of us accountable to the constituents we serve. I know Kevie plans to take a well-deserved vacation, but I expect that she will continue to find ways to serve her community. I know we all feel very lucky to have benefited from her work here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kevie Niland on her outstanding and productive service to this body and to our country and wish her the very best in her well-earned retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Grijalva, for his assistance on this bill and his leadership on so many other important issues. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in rising in strong support of S. 476, a bill to restore the authority of the C&O Canal National Historical Park Commission. I joined with Congressman Frank Wolf and Congressman John Delaney to introduce companion legislation to this bill in the House and appreciate the work of my friend Senator Cardin in the Senate and Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio of the Natural Resources Committee in bringing this bill to the floor of the House today. The C&O Canal National Historical Park begins just a few miles from this Capitol and follows the old C&O Canal and towpath for about 185 miles to reach Cumberland, Maryland. Along the way, as Congressman Hastings says, it passes through three States, and it passes through the District of Columbia and many cities and towns in rural areas. It is a treasure of the National Park System, providing a place for visitors to learn about the history of the canal and enjoy the scenic views from the towpath. The C&O Canal National Historical Park Commission was established along with the park in 1971, an idea of my former boss, Senator Mac Mathias of Maryland, and former Congressman Gilbert Gude of Maryland. They believed that a park spanning so many diverse communities should have a formal channel through which park management could seek advice and input on park policy from its many neighbors. For years, this model worked well, and then the authority for the Commission expired in 2011. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would reestablish the Commission, allowing it to resume its critical service. While the Commission would have no authority to make binding park policy, it would serve an important advisory role and strengthen the relationship between the park and its neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today and thank the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this to the floor in a bipartisan basis.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5078, a bill that would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency from clarifying protections for drinking water under the Clean Water Act. Today's legislation would prohibit the Army Corps and EPA from continuing proposed action to ensure that the streams and wetlands that feed our waterways and provide drinking water for millions of Americans are protected from pollution. In 2001 and 2006, Supreme Court decisions created confusion about precisely which upstream tributaries were covered by the law. Subsequent policy guidance only increased legal uncertainty and undermined efforts to protect drinking water for more than 117 million Americans, including more than 26 million residents in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In response to this confusion, the Army Corps and EPA have proposed a rule that would clarify which waters must be protected in order to safeguard public health and resources, and are currently seeking comments from stakeholders. Their proposal protects waters that have historically been covered by the Clean Water Act while continuing exemptions for agriculture. The bill on the floor today would not only shortcut the public comment process and withdraw the proposed rule, but would also prohibit the Army Corps and EPA from clarifying the regulation in the future. For too long, legal uncertainty around the Clean Water Act jurisdiction has jeopardized the health of drinking water and created confusing delays for industry as they struggle to determine their responsibility under the law. Congress should allow this rulemaking to go forward to develop a clear, practical standard that restores protections to our communities. I urge a no vote on the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 3230, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014. I also want to commend Chairman Sanders, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Burr, and Ranking Member Michaud for their work on crafting a bipartisan bill that not only provides for our veterans but addresses many of the systemic problems within the Veteran Health Administration. The final conference agreement provides over $17 billion in funding for the Department of Veteran Affairs. This includes $10 billion in funding to allow veterans who live more than 40 miles away from a VA facility, or who have waited more than 30 days for an appointment at a VA medical center, to seek care with an outside provider. In addition, it provides the VA with $6.5 billion in funding to address its critical shortage of doctors and nurses and to allow the VA to enter into 27 new medical facility leases. By expanding access to care, increasing staffing needs, and authorizing new clinics, this bill is a great first step in tackling many of the ongoing problems that have surfaced at the VA in recent years. The Conference Report strengthens a number of other programs to help support our veterans and their families. It expands eligibility and provides veterans who experienced military sexual trauma while on inactive duty the opportunity to seek sexual trauma counseling. It also modifies the Post 9/11 GI Bill and allows veterans to receive in-state tuition rates at any public university, if they decide to relocate. Finally, today's legislation extends an important program set to expire later this year to provide housing for veterans struggling with traumatic brain injuries. I do, however, have reservations about a provision in this bill which gives the VA Secretary broad authority to fire Senior Executive Service (SES) employees even though the VA already has tools to remove SES employees who are rated unsatisfactory. However, I am encouraged that-- unlike legislation that passed the House earlier this year--the conference agreement does provide SES employees with an expedited appeals process through a Merit Systems Protection Board. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than providing for those who have sacrificed so much for our country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act,'' which would roll back clean water protections and allow untracked pesticide pollution in our rivers and streams. More than two and a half years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency put in place basic pesticide protections by requiring a general permit for the direct application of pesticides into waterways. Nearly 2,000 waterways are already contaminated by pesticides, harming fish and amphibians and potentially accumulating in people who eat those fish. The commonsense permit does not affect land applications of pesticides, maintains existing agricultural exemptions, and allows for immediate spraying to protect the public from vector-borne diseases. Today's legislation would roll back the permitting rule, leaving pesticide application unmonitored and our waterways vulnerable to contamination. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the highway bill before us today. While I strongly support infrastructure spending and believe we must pass a short-term fix to avert insolvency this summer, I am concerned that this bill will allow us to simply kick the can down the road one more time and delay a long-term solution. This week, the Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to shorten the timeline of this emergency extension, increasing pressure for a permanent solution this year. The House should not now delay those urgent conversations into next Spring. Our states and businesses have repeatedly asked for a long-term highway bill that provides certainty and allows them to tackle our greatest infrastructure needs. Congress should pass a temporary patch to get us the next few months, and then immediately begin work to fix the Trust Fund once and for all. Our constituents expect solutions, not band-aids, and it is long past time for Congress to deliver.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Is it not the rule, passed out of the committee, that is pending? That is the parliamentary inquiry. Is that what is pending before the House, the rule?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But, Mr. Speaker, isn't the matter pending before the House the rule that the designated chairman--acting chairman--of the Rules Committee just spoke about?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. And I am reading one of the provisions of that resolution, specifically section 4 of that rule, which is before the House which changes the rules of the House to say that a motion may only be made by the majority leader or his designee, as opposed to the privileged motion required under the underlying rule. Is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If I could ask for 1 minute of time to discuss this matter.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am looking over the rule that was passed late last night, and my reading of the rule indicates that that there was a change in the standing rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like some parliamentary clarification on that provision. If you look at the resolution in section 4, it says, ``Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to H.R. 5021''--that is the transportation-related bill--``may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.'' Now, I am looking at the standing rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, and the standing rules of the House provide that ``when the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.'' My question is: Doesn't ``privileged'' mean available to any Member of the House?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, Mr. Speaker, my understanding of a parliamentary inquiry was where the Speaker was supposed to clarify questions of the rules and the parliamentary order. I am simply asking whether or not, in previous rulings by this House and by the Parliamentarian, ``privileged'' has been interpreted to mean something that is available to any Member of the House, not just to the majority leader or the designee of the majority leader?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Look, yesterday, we were on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, and our Republican colleagues passed a measure to sue the President of the United States, waste millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to sue the President of the United States, and the claim was the President has exceeded his authority. That is a specious claim, but what is incredible is the very next day our Republican colleagues are here suspending democracy in the House, changing the standing rules of the House to take away from any Member of the House the opportunity to offer a motion with respect to the transportation bill, which is what the standing rules of the House provide, and they want to say no, we are going to take that right away from a Member, and we are going to give it exclusively to the Republican leader or the Republican leader's designee. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the last time we saw this happen? On the government shutdown. Our Republican colleagues used the same measure to refuse to take up the Senate bill, which would have ended the government shutdown. They didn't want to end it, so they kept it going. That cost the American taxpayer $24 billion in damage to the economy. Let's not play games with the rule, that this rule allows every Member their rights. The Speaker is not the king, and we should make sure that every Member has an opportunity.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Chair does not want to interpret this parliamentary inquiry at this time, at what point would it be in order to ask the Parliamentarian and the Chair to interpret the rules of the House?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4315, which would interfere with scientific determinations for endangered species recovery and divert resources towards unnecessary bureaucracy at the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act is designed to use the best possible science to identify and protect our most vulnerable species from extinction. This bill would eliminate rational assessment of data and instead mandate that any information from any state, local, or tribal government must be named the ``best available science'' to make decisions. It includes no minimum threshold, such as peer review, for the integrity of that data. Moreover, it invites uncertainty, as there is no way to distinguish between conflicting data from two different states or localities. The bill also creates unnecessary and cumbersome reporting requirements for the Fish and Wildlife Service, including listing potentially sensitive commercial data and species location information online. It includes no additional funding to complete these reports, diverting funds from the agency's core mission of safeguarding vulnerable species. As the Speaker plans to recess the House at the end of this week, there are important issues that we should be addressing, including the wildfires that threaten public and private lands in the west. Instead, we are weakening fundamental protections for endangered species, creating more paperwork to distract from recovery efforts, and devising bizarre new rules to politicize science. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the child tax credit, and I support expanding and strengthening the child tax credit. The problem is this bill does just the opposite for the most needy families with kids in the United States. They don't get a tax cut under this bill. In fact, they get deliberately left behind because this bill fails to extend a critical improvement to the tax credit that is only currently temporary in law, and they don't extend that. I heard the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee earlier blaming that on the President, once again, as if the President made our Republican colleagues not include that provision in their bill. Extending the child tax credit is in the President's budget. Extending the child tax credit is in the House Democratic budget. Extending that child tax credit enhancement is not in the House Republican budget, and that is why it is not here today. What is the impact of this? The impact is to hurt our low-income families with kids. As Mr. Levin pointed out earlier, it is really ironic that, just yesterday, the chairman of the Budget Committee gave a big talk in Washington about how he wanted to ``start a conversation about poverty'' and ``help families get ahead.'' That was yesterday. Those were words. Here we are on the floor of the House today with an actual deed, an actual act--a vote that will put 12 million more Americans into poverty or deeper into poverty, 6 million of them children. The President in his budget extends those benefits--those tax strengthening, tax-cut provisions--and pays for them by getting rid of some of the big tax breaks for corporations. The Republican approach has been just the opposite. In the last 6 weeks, they have permanently extended tax breaks for big corporations, but today, when it comes to the kids, they leave them behind. They don't extend those enhancements. Who are these individuals? Let me point out to our colleagues the folks who are being left behind: A single mother of two, working full-time at minimum wage, will lose a tax credit of $1,725. This is an individual who is making about $15,000 a year. These are the people we are trying to help with the child tax credit. Yes, we would love to expand it, but not at the expense of this single mom. Who else gets left behind? It would be an Army private E-1--married, one child. They are going to lose $229 in their child tax credit because this Republican bill refuses to extend those enhancements. Mr. Speaker, yes, let's strengthen it, but not at the expense of those most vulnerable families. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. I am honored to stand with him and all of us in solidarity with the people of the Netherlands and the families and loved ones of all the victims of that act of terror. We look forward to working together to make sure that this situation is resolved as quickly as possible and the perpetrators are held accountable. I know we all stand together on that as well. And I am grateful to my colleague from Michigan for bringing us together for this purpose.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the two bipartisan higher education bills we are considering this week--the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act (H.R. 3136) and the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act (H.R. 4984). H.R. 3136, on the floor today, allows schools to pilot new competency-based education programs to give students more flexibility to pursue their educations. By exploring new options to measure student growth, rather than relying solely on completed credit hours, we can reduce costs and time to degree for non-traditional students. H.R. 4984, which we will consider tomorrow, increases financial counseling for students and parents to ensure that they understand any lower-cost options that are available before turning to more expensive loans, have an accurate picture of their debt and obligations, and can predict and manage their monthly payments upon graduation. While I support both of these efforts, much more needs to be done to ensure that students have access to affordable education and address college debt, which has now surpassed $1 trillion. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and give America's students the opportunity to pursue the skills and education they need without accumulating debt they can't afford.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) on its 40th anniversary. Forty years ago, President Nixon signed into law the LSC Act, establishing the Legal Services Corporation as one of the major sources of funding for civil legal aid. In the time since, LSC has grown to be the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans, including many military families and veterans. Legal Services Corporation-funded legal aid programs continue to make a crucial difference to millions of Americans by assisting with the most basic civil legal needs, such as addressing matters involving safety, subsistence, and family stability. LSC funds 134 legal aid organizations that serve hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals, children, families, seniors, and veterans across America. These individuals range from women seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, and seniors defending against consumer scams. Demand for legal services and the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater in this country. In recent years, however, over 1,000 full time employees have been terminated as a result of a continued lack of funding for LSC. So while we reflect on the achievements of LSC over the last forty years, Congress must also renew its commitment to providing LSC the critical resources it needs to assist our most vulnerable. On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC- funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.