Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the Appropriations Committee's efforts to return to regular order, the Administration has issued a veto threat for this bill--and it's not hard to understand why. While the bill does an adequate job funding the federal judiciary--as well as some important entrepreneurial initiatives at the Small Business Administration--virtually every other funding allocation and policy directive in this bill is either insufficient or misguided. The Internal Revenue Service is funded at below sequestration levels, which will unquestionably hinder taxpayer assistance and undermine efforts to close the tax gap. The Securities and Exchange Commission charged with protecting investors and policing our financial markets is funded at $300 million below the President's request. And the Election Assistance Commission tasked with ensuring the integrity of our elections is eliminated altogether. In addition to these funding decisions, H.R. 5016 contains policy riders hostile to the President's Climate Action Plan, the Affordable Care Act, women's reproductive health and standards governing the political activities of tax-exempt organizations. The independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be terminated under this legislation. Mr. Chair, this bill is wrong on funding and wrong on policy. I urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed in its current form.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit does two things. First, it ensures that the charities we support, we support in a fiscally responsible manner by extending these incentives for 2 years, rather than permanently in order to, number one, give taxpayers clarity, but also to give this Congress time to work together on tax reform without piling up huge new deficits. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday in the Budget Committee, we had a hearing on the long-term deficits. Our Republican colleagues said they worry about the long-term deficit picture, and yet, in the last 6 weeks, they have added over $500 billion to the deficit, in violation of their own budget, including what we are doing today. So let's do this extension for 2 years and in a fiscally responsible manner. The second thing this motion does is it denies the benefits of this legislation to any corporation that effectively renounces its U.S. citizenship and reincorporates overseas to avoid taxes. These so-called corporate inversions are generating outrage among families and small businesses around the country who can't simply tell the IRS they have moved their residence to some tax haven country because they don't want to pay their taxes. In recent months, we have seen corporation after corporation jumping on this bandwagon. In fact, the financial press reports that Walgreens, the drugstore chain that has almost all of its stores right here in the United States, is thinking about moving to Switzerland. Now here is the catch: Walgreens' management doesn't want to do it, but they are being driven by outside hedge fund stockholders to do this simply for tax purposes, so we have a situation where the management of an American company is being forced to decide between pressure from hedge funds to exploit a tax dodge and loyalty to the United States of America, the country where Walgreens was built into a company and where its customers are. Just on Tuesday, Secretary Lew wrote to Congress expressing urgency to stop this fled of inversions now as we deal with broader tax reform. He called for a new sense of economic patriotism, and I couldn't agree with him more. The ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, and others have worked together to do this. We have got to get it done. The respected reporter, Alan Sloan, just wrote about this in Fortune magazine this month and said he was angry about this. Mr. Speaker, we should all be angry. We should do something about it. We have already voted to say, on appropriations bills, that you shouldn't benefit from contracts if you are just going to move your residency overseas. We should say the same thing with respect to tax benefits. You shouldn't get a tax benefit if you are renouncing your U.S. citizenship and deserting U.S. taxpayers and the country for tax-avoidance schemes. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements of my constituent, Henry Minton Francis, Sr., who devoted his entire life to serving our country and his community. Mr. Francis was also the oldest living African American graduate of West Point Academy. H. Minton Francis, Lt. Col., USA Ret., was a fifth generation Washingtonian and resident of Chevy Chase, MD. He attended public schools in the District of Columbia where he graduated from the famous Paul Laurence Dunbar High School. Educated at the University of Pennsylvania and the United States Military Academy, he also studied at Syracuse University, where he earned an MBA degree with honors and was elected to the International Honor Society of Beta Gamma Sigma. Following graduation from West Point in 1944, Mr. Francis served the nation as an officer of the Regular Army for twenty-one years. He was a member of the Army Concept Team in Vietnam; a commander of artillery soldiers in the Korean Conflict and in World War II. His final military duty was to serve as a staff officer for the Comptroller of the Army and the Secretary of Defense. Subsequent to his retirement from the Army, Mr. Francis worked both in government and the private sector. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Francis was in charge of the Defense Human Goals Program guaranteeing protection of the rights of, and equal opportunities for, women, minorities and the disabled of all races, ethnic groups and religions. His program embraced the now famous Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida, the first of its kind anywhere in the United States. For his extraordinary efforts, Mr. Francis was awarded the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal for his exceptional service in the Department of Defense. On leaving federal service, Mr. Francis accepted appointments at Howard University as Director of University Planning; Executive Director of the University-Wide Self-Study Task force; Executive Secretary of the Presidential Search Committee in 1989; Special Assistant to the President; and Director of Governmental Affairs. In December 1992, he was appointed President of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, authorized at that time by the United States Congress to erect a memorial on the National Mall in honor of the more than 5,000 African Americans who fought and died in the American Revolution. For nearly 20 years Mr. Francis was a civilian aide to the Secretary of the Army, a voluntary office without compensation, where he carried the Army's message and image to the American people. As a human resources consultant to the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Francis traveled to Europe at his own expense to investigate and report on the command climate with respect to race and gender relations in the U.S. Army units stationed in Germany. He performed a similar service for Army installations in the midwestem United States. The report produced by his group led to major changes in the Army's policy and practices with respect to race and gender. Mr. Francis was a Life Member of Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Additionally, he was a Trustee Emeritus of the Association of Graduates of the United States Military Academy, a member of the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Board of Managers of the Historical Society of Washington, DC, and the Board of Directors of Metropolitan USO in Washington. He was a volunteer member of the Board of Directors of the Carroll Publishing Company of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. He held memberships in the National Press Club and the University Club of Washington, DC, and he was a member of Sigma Pi Phi, the oldest and one of the most prestigious African-American fraternities. Mr. Francis is survived by his second wife Alicia G. D. Francis and five children from his first marriage: Marsha A. Francis, Henry M. Francis, Jr., M.D.; Peter M. Francis, Morya K.F. Ferris, and John H. Francis, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews, other relatives and friends. I am proud to speak today to honor this extraordinary man and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. H. Minton Francis Sr.'s many accomplishments, his lifelong work on behalf of our nation's veterans, and his profound commitment to honoring their service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am looking at that, and it does indicate to me that the House Republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their own budget.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just would point out, Mr. Speaker, that here is exactly what happened. The rule----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Did the Republican rule--the rule that was brought to the floor of the House--include a provision that waived section 311(a) of the Budget Act?

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Is the point of order as a result of the fact that the Republicans apparently passed a rule that waives section 311(a) of the Budget Act?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, further on the point of order, the gentleman from Michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues raised in the point of order. I would ask the gentleman about section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which is what this point of order is based on. Let's talk about the point of order. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee voted for the House Budget Act. He voted for it, and now he is bringing to the floor of the House a provision that violates the same Budget Act that that budget was passed pursuant to. So, Mr. Speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order because what we have here is a situation where Republicans came to this House floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the floor today with another bill that violates the Budget Act's section 311(a). So I would like a ruling on the point of order.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Budget Act of 1974. If you look at section 311, it is entitled, ``Enforcement of Budget Aggregates.'' The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, violates that section of the Budget Act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth in the Republican budget that was passed on this House floor with much fanfare on May 15. The bill before us does not keep the revenues at those levels. I would like, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this point of order, to point out that on May 15 of this year Chairman Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee, filed a statement in the Congressional Record reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the remainder of the budget window. And this is what he said when he filed that. This is, Mr. Speaker, in the Record of May 15, page H4428. This is what Mr. Ryan said: ``This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.'' This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, clearly violates that provision of the statute of section 311(a) of the Budget Act because it increases the deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this House. It is a clear breach of the rule. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the point of order be sustained and that the House Republicans have to live up to their own budget resolution which, as I say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3301, which would dramatically weaken the public input and environmental review process for cross-border pipelines. Cross-border pipelines can be enormously complex projects, spanning hundreds of miles and operating for decades. The bill before us today would limit environmental review of these projects to the narrow segment that actually crosses the border, preventing analysis of the full scope of impacts on private property, public safety, and water quality. And it would exempt modifications to existing pipelines from any federal review, so a pipeline's capacity could be increased significantly, its contents could be changed, or its flow could be reversed without any discussion of the impacts of those decisions. Moreover, this bill opens the door to unlimited natural gas exports by lifting all restrictions on exports to Canada or Mexico. Those exports could then be shipped anywhere in the world without approval or review of impacts on domestic energy prices. A number of American manufacturers have expressed concern about unchecked LNG exports raising their costs of doing business and increasing the price of consumer goods. Once again, we have a bill on the floor of this House that limits public comment and short-circuits the cost-benefit analysis. While we all want these reviews to operate efficiently, we should not place arbitrary restrictions that fail to give regulators enough information to make a responsible decision. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4870, the FY2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I commend the House Appropriations Committee's continued support for our servicemembers and our national defense. However, I have serious concerns with a number of misguided funding provisions in this year's DoD Appropriations bill. We have to budget based on reality, instead of writing a blank check and holding onto as ``much of the stuff and the training as possible'' and hoping that ``some miracle happens and we get money next year that we don't have now,'' as Chairman McKeon put it last month. As a result of this line of thinking, this legislation avoids making many tough choices. As was the case with last month's Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 4870 provides billions of dollars in funding that the Department of Defense neither requested nor needs. This includes funding for additional EA-18G aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, and unrequested upgrades to the M-1 Abrams tank. It also blocks the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options are readily available. I also strongly object to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of the bill, which continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. I was also disappointed that two amendments were adopted on the House floor which would bar the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to Yemen and other foreign countries. As the President made clear in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, we cannot wait any longer to lift the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and close down this facility once-and-for-all. This bill also provides $79 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations even though we have not received a detailed OCO budget request. There is no justification for this amount. The bill holds back 85% of the funding from being obligated until the Pentagon submits a detailed spending plan. But this is no safeguard because the Pentagon still determines virtually all of the details of how the funding is spent. Congress has no opportunity to provide input through regular order into how much we should spend for war operations and on what. We should take notice that $79 billion is larger than every other appropriations bill except for two--Defense and Labor, HHS, Education. We need to provide at least some minimum level of oversight and control over such a large sum of money. Despite my overall opposition to this legislation, I was happy that a bipartisan amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren was adopted that would limit funding for many backdoor programs within Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. This was a provision that was initially in the USA Freedom Act before being stripped in its final passage and would prevent the NSA from being able to search government databases for foreign communications content of American citizens without a warrant. The passage of this amendment will strengthen the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. Today's bill also continues to address the problem of sexual assault in the military and fully funds the President's request for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs. I also want to make clear my views with respect to the amendments relating to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against the al Queda elements responsible for the attacks of 9/11/2001 and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The President has announced his intention to end combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of this year, and to keep a residual force in Afghanistan for an additional year subject to a Status of Forces Agreement. There is also the question of how the existing use of force authorization applies to military action outside of Afghanistan, such as in Yemen. Given the changing circumstances, it makes sense to end it or to revise the current authorization and adapt it to the current situation. As for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, it should be terminated. We have withdrawn our troops from Iraq, and we should no longer provide the Executive Branch with a blank check for future military action there. That does not mean that the President could not seek Congressional authorization for future military action in Iraq or, if the conditions apply, exercise his constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief. However, I supported the amendment to prohibit the use of funds in this bill for combat operations in Iraq because I don't think there is a sound case for putting American troops in combat and, in the absence of such a limitation, there is no check on the unlimited use of force in Iraq given the current 2002 authorization to use force there. Finally, I want to say a word about the Gosar Amendment. This amendment was a blatant effort to exploit fear and misunderstanding. There is no intention to provide Iran, Syria, Hamas, or ISIS with any military assistance. I would strongly oppose any such move. However, the United States, with the support of the State of Israel, has at times provided different forms of assistance to the Palestinian Authority to enhance security and fight terrorism. By including the Palestinian Authority in the list of entities that should be prohibited from receiving assistance, the amendment was an obvious example of what is known around here as a ``gotya'' amendment. It is time to stop playing those political games. It is my hope that many of my objections to the Defense Appropriations bill will be resolved in Conference with the Senate and that I will be able to support its final passage.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, in the absence of fresh ideas for the American people, the Republican majority is turning back to old ones and repackaging legislation that has already passed the House for another vote. It may have a nice name, but this bill contains the same unnecessary, irresponsible giveaways to Big Oil at the expense of American taxpayers. Today's bill would dramatically expand drilling on public lands and offshore, limiting public input into those lease sales and prioritizing drilling above all other uses, including hunting, fishing, and recreation. It undermines the existing procedures that ensure safe and responsible operations, effectively giving oil companies a blank check without appropriate safeguards. This bill is unnecessary. Oil production in the United States is already at a 25-year high and net oil imports are at a 29-year low. We are already the world's top natural gas producer. This bill will not reduce energy prices or increase energy security. We should not give away our taxpayer-owned natural resources to already-profitable big oil companies. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Evelyn Gross who died on June 18th in Plano, Texas at the age of 92 after a long battle with lung cancer. Evelyn Gross was the mother of Alan Gross, the subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development, who has been imprisoned in Cuba for the last four and a half years for working to increase Internet access for Cuba's small Jewish community. Evelyn Gross's last wish was to see her son before she died, but despite repeated pleas for a humanitarian furlough to visit her, the Cuban officials refused to grant Alan's request to do so. As the end of her life approached, in a fit of desperation, Alan went on a hunger strike to protest the failure of both governments to resolve this issue and free him. At his mother's urging, Alan stopped the hunger strike after nine days. Judy Gross, Alan's wife said that the death of Evelyn Gross was a devastating blow to Alan, who was extremely close to his mother and was already in a fragile state. Before his arrest, Alan spoke to her twice a day by phone. We are all very worried about how he is coping with her death. Judy Gross fears that her husband will sink deeper into depression and give up all hope of ever coming home. She worries that the pain of not being able to see his mother before her passing could start Alan down a dangerous path of destructive behavior. Before the death of Evelyn Gross, many of Alan's friends had already grown deeply concerned about Alan's physical and emotional well being. Alan lives confined in a small prison cell 23 hours a day with two other inmates. Until recently, prison officials kept the lights on in the cell 24 hours a day. Weakened by the prospect of having to serve out a 15-year prison sentence under these conditions, Alan's health and emotional state have suffered. He has lost over 100 pounds, he suffers from chronic pain, and his loss of hope and increasing despondency have caused those who love him to fear that he is at risk of losing his will to live. When Alan turned 65 last month, he swore that it would be his last birthday in prison. He said he was determined to come home, alive or dead. I am taking the floor today to urge the Government of Cuba to free Alan Gross and for President Obama to do everything he can to obtain his release. I fear for what might happen if nothing is done soon to free Alan Gross.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I support reauthorizing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, and believe a properly resourced CFTC has a critical role to play in promoting fair and transparent markets that effectively serve end users and consumers without putting taxpayers or our financial system at risk. Unfortunately, H.R. 4413 departs from this vital objective in several important ways. First, Title II of H.R. 4413 imposes onerous new administrative burdens on the CFTC whose practical effect will be to delay the Commission's ongoing Dodd-Frank rulemaking and encourage costly litigation. We need more certainty--not less certainty--when it comes to regulating our derivatives markets, and H.R. 4413 would take us in precisely the opposite direction. Second, Title III of H.R. 4413 would make it much more difficult for the CFTC to regulate cross-border derivatives transactions that pose a risk to the U.S. economy. The legislation creates this vulnerability by substituting foreign derivatives rules for U.S. law unless the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, jointly determine that a foreign country's regulatory regime is not broadly equivalent to our own. While I support international efforts to harmonize effective rules of the road for derivatives transactions, I do not support presuming an equivalency in this area that does not currently exist. Six years after unregulated derivatives transactions contributed to the sharpest downturn in our economy since the Great Depression, we simply cannot afford to outsource the protection of our financial system to foreign regulators. Third, neither this legislation--nor the FY 2015 House Agriculture- FDA Appropriations bill, which proposes to slash the CFTC's budget by 22 percent below the President's request--does anything to provide the CFTC with the resources it needs to police fraud and excessive speculation in our derivatives markets on behalf of end users and consumers. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4413.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that the entire Nation is cheering on Team USA in the World Cup right now, and we are happy that they are going to continue to do well; but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's attention to another hard-fought game, which was the second annual Capital Soccer Classic. In a very close game, the Democrats edged out the Republicans by a score of 7-6, and we will have the plaque. Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that both teams benefited from having some professional players on both sides, but the Democrats had a ringer in the name of Eric Swalwell, who was a great player and who was the high scorer in the game; and also, as goalie, he stopped a lot of goals. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the people who participated in the Soccer Caucus, cochair David Reichert--Congressman Reichert and Todd Young. We also want to thank the captain of the Democratic team, Mike McIntyre; and Erik Paulsen played very well. Finally, I want to acknowledge George Miller, who is a cochair of the caucus. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the U.S. Soccer Foundation for all their support for soccer, for all the good work they do to promote soccer among the youth in our country. Now, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the cochair of the Soccer Caucus, former Division I player at the Naval Academy, Todd Young.