Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was glad the last speaker mentioned the CBO report on immigration reform. I just wish that, if they really wanted to have a pro-growth policy, they would adopt the bipartisan immigration legislation that the CBO wrote about, because what the CBO report said was that would be a great boost to economic growth in our country. It would create more jobs. It would create more economic activity. As I said, because it would generate more economic activity and more pro-growth revenue, it would actually reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $190 billion, and almost a trillion over 20. So, great. I haven't really heard a response to this, Mr. Chairman, but we want more information. CBO does reports all the time. But they have this big except. We want more information, except we don't want information about this part of our budget that deals with important investment in our future. As Mr. Connolly said, a lot of our economic competitors have been copying successful models from the United States. For example, the Chinese are trying to hire more scientists in the areas of biomedical research, yet the Republican budget, if you apply it across the board, cut 24 percent--cut--over the next 10 years from the amount for research at NIH that was in the Ryan-Murray document. Again, not surprising they don't want the Congressional Budget Office to look in detail at that. When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the budget that just came out of the Budget Committee the other night, which will be on the floor next week, they said, over the next couple of years, these fiscal policies would reduce output and employment below the levels projected in CBO's baseline--translation: it would reduce economic activity and reduce job growth over the next couple of years. So, again, not surprising that in the legislation before us, pro- growth budgeting, our Republican colleagues don't want the CBO to tell us about the pro-growth benefits of those important investments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I sound like a broken record. Our colleagues keep saying they want more information, but the bill specifically excludes a major portion of information. I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, if the gentleman would yield, we could clarify it, but apparently he won't.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, what recourse, if any, do I have when the gentleman misstated my point totally?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask for a point of order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield, because that is not what I said was the fraud.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, last night in the House Budget Committee, we had a big debate, and at the end of the debate, we voted on the House Republican budget. During that debate, there was a lot of talk about how we can reduce our long-term deficits. Our Republican colleagues in their budget said they didn't want to close one special interest tax break to help reduce our long-term deficit. They would rather cut the budget that helps provide for our kids' education. They wanted to reopen, in their budget, the doughnut hole so seniors with high prescription drug costs will pay $1,200 more per year. So they were willing to do all that, but they wouldn't close a single tax loophole. But they said they cared about reducing the deficit. Now, lo and behold, we have a bill on the floor of the House that, in one fell swoop, if it is voted on, will increase the deficit by $74 billion. Republicans have a rule that they put into the rules of the House that says you can't do that. You shouldn't be increasing the deficit. There should be some offset. You should cut somewhere else. We think you should also be able to cut some tax expenditures for very special interests. But the idea is that we shouldn't be doing things that increase the deficit. But those rules were waived for this, a little special wand in the Rules Committee: we are not going to abide by the rules, and so $79 billion increase to the deficit. Now, here is the really interesting thing. We had a debate last night in the Budget Committee about the Affordable Care Act. We made the point that the Republican claim that their budget is balanced in year 10 is totally inconsistent with the claim that they want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, and here is why: In the Republican budget--and we all hope it will come to the floor next Thursday. In the Republican budget, they get rid of all the benefits for people in the Affordable Care Act. Right? They get rid of the tax credits that help more Americans purchase insurance. They get rid of the provision that says you can keep your child on your insurance policy until age 26. They get rid of that. But you keep very important parts of the Affordable Care Act. You keep all the revenues, $1 trillion in revenues. And you know what else you keep? You keep all the Medicare savings. In fact, you have $2 trillion embedded in the Affordable Care Act in your budget from the Affordable Care Act. Today is the smoking gun, because if you pass this bill, the budget that was claimed to be balanced yesterday in the Budget Committee is no longer in balance. You know why? You claimed that in year 10, under your budget, in year 10, that you would have a surplus of $5 billion. But that's not true, because you can't at the same time claim with a straight face that you are getting rid of the Affordable Care Act because the Affordable Care Act provides, as I said, $2 trillion in your own budget. In that year 10, when you pass this, $9 billion disappears from the Treasury in year 10. So today, by your own accounting, the budget that Republicans claimed to be balanced last night in the Budget Committee today will already be unbalanced, and that is just getting rid of a little piece of the Affordable Care Act. If you get rid of all of it, then you get rid of all the revenues that are in your budget, and you get rid of the savings in your budget, and your budget will not possibly balance. So, Madam Speaker, it is a fraud to claim that the Republican budget balances and, at the same time, for Republicans to say they are in favor of getting rid of all of the Affordable Care Act. Both things cannot be true at the same time. So either Republicans level with the American people that their budget is not in balance--and starting today, it won't be, by their own terms--or they acknowledge to the American people that they have gotten rid of all the good stuff in the Affordable Care Act, the stuff that helps people afford health care, but they kept all the savings. So the moment of truth is today. The smoking gun is today. We had this big debate. I hope the Budget Committee members on the Republican side will come down here and fess up.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, using Medicare as a political pawn in their 51st attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act is a new low, even for House Republicans. Americans are waiting for Congress to stop wasting time and start passing constructive solutions to the real challenges this country faces. The broken Medicare physician payment system is one such challenge. And there is a bipartisan, bicameral plan to reform Medicare physician payments to promote quality and efficiency. Unfortunately, today's vote isn't about that plan at all. We know this because the bill includes a poison pill that guarantees it will never become law. This is nothing more than one more tired exercise in Republicans indulging their obsessive hatred of the Affordable Care Act. Rather than working with Democrats to reach agreement on how to advance Medicare payment reform in a fiscally responsible way, Republicans instead attached a five-year delay of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that everyone take responsibility for having health insurance. The White House has indicated the President would veto this bill if it were to reach his desk. Private health insurers object to today's anti-Obamacare exercise. America's Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross BlueShield Association wrote: ``we have deep concerns about packaging the Medicare physician payment bill with legislation that would sever the link between the ACA's individual mandate and its market reforms. The experience of states that attempted this in the 1990s demonstrates that removing this important linkage will result in more uninsured Americans, higher costs, and reduced choices for individuals and families. To avoid these outcomes, we are asking Congress to reject efforts to repeal or delay the individual mandate in the debate on Medicare physician payment reform.'' The American Academy of Family Physicians had this to say: ``It is disturbing that work designed to expand access to quality health care would be advanced alongside a policy that deliberately removes access to quality health care coverage. Providing access to health care coverage for millions of Medicare beneficiaries while eliminating access to health care coverage for millions more is simply poor public policy and we urge that such approach be abandoned.'' This vote today is further evidence--as if any more were needed--that Republicans in Congress simply are not serious about addressing our real challenges. We need to fix Medicare physician payments. We need to improve opportunity in this country. We need to raise the minimum wage. We need to renew extended unemployment benefits. Currently over two million Americans out of work through no fault of their own have been left in the lurch by Republicans' refusal to renew these benefits. We were elected to this body to solve problems, not to posture endlessly. If Congressional Republicans were serious about fixing Medicare physician payments, they would not pull stunts like this. If they cared more about solving problems than they do about fulfilling their anti- Obamacare fetish, they would not pull stunts like this. Americans deserve better. Medicare beneficiaries deserve better, as do the doctors who treat them. To the majority, I say, stop wasting everyone's time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3189, a contradictory piece of legislation that would confuse the issue of water rights across the country. As initially written, this bill, which attempts to solve a dispute between Colorado ski resorts and the U.S. Forest Service, was so broad that it would have impacted the permitting process for the Conowingo dam in Maryland and our local efforts to restore threatened species in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. While I appreciate that the Manager's amendment narrowly addresses the issue of dam permitting, I remain concerned that contradictory sections in this bill will create confusion and litigation that will prevent agencies from ensuring proper stewardship of federal lands. When private entities request permits to operate on public lands, federal agencies have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that their operations would not harm the resources on those lands. If agencies cannot guarantee protections, they may simply deny permits and prohibit private use. This bill, by attempting to rewrite years of water rights law in a few short pages, introduces so much uncertainty into the process that those denials are likely to become a common occurrence. Congressman Polis has offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would restore the narrow focus on the disputed ski resort water rights. I urge my colleagues to support his effort and oppose the bill as currently written.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of March 13, 2014, I was attending a meeting at the White House to discuss a sensitive constituent issue and was absent for rollcall vote 126. Had I been present for rollcall vote 126, on passage of H. Res. 515, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements and remarkable life story of Fred A. Kahn. In addition to his 30 years of distinguished service as a federal employee, Mr. Kahn is credited for his role as an original architect of the modern American Presidential debate and for his work to promote tolerance and understanding through Holocaust education. Mr. Kahn was born to Jewish parents in Wiesbaden, Germany on December 19, 1932. In January 1933, when Hitler rose to power as Chancellor of Germany, Mr. Kahn's parents fled to Belgium, leaving their infant son behind in Germany in the care of his Uncle Siegfried and Aunt Rosa. On October 1, 1938, six weeks before the terror of Kristallnacht, Siegfried and Rosa arranged for six-year-old Fred's dramatic escape and successful reunification with his parents on the German-Belgian border. Following the occupation of Belgium by the Germans in May 1940, the family went into hiding until Belgium's liberation in September 1944. Sadly, Siegfried and Rosa were both murdered by the Nazis. Mr. Kahn immigrated to the United States when he was 19, settled in Baltimore, Maryland, and was inducted into the U.S. Army on March 17, 1953. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen on November 24, 1953 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina while serving with the 82nd Airborne Division. After basic training, he was assigned to the 525th Military Intelligence Service where he worked as an intelligence analyst. In March 1954, he returned to Germany, this time as an American soldier. After his honorable discharge from the Army in 1955, Mr. Kahn enrolled in the University of Maryland. Mr. Kahn devised an idea that would later become a revered tradition in American politics. In 1956, Mr. Kahn approached the University administration with a novel idea--a proposal for an on-campus Presidential debate. The Maryland Board of Regents rejected the proposal. However, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt endorsed the idea. When Mr. Kahn attended the 1958 Brussels World's Fair as an employee of the U.S. Department of State, he met with Gov. Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate in 1952 and 1956. Governor Stevenson endorsed the idea as well. In 1960 the League of Women Voters organized the first Presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. After graduating from the University of Maryland, Mr. Kahn was awarded a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship to the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He spent the next 30 years as a political economist for the U.S. government and was instrumental in the creation of the Job Corps for the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. He later finished his career as an economist for the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Kahn served on the Board of the National Council of the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA), the Board of Editors of the Public Administration Review, and the Board of Directors of the Society of Government Economists. He was awarded a Distinguished Career Service Award by the U.S. Secretary of Labor. After his 1992 retirement from federal service, Mr. Kahn continued to serve his community as a teacher of Holocaust history, promoting tolerance and understanding. In 2005 Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich appointed Mr. Kahn to his Task Force to Implement Holocaust, Genocide, Human Rights and Tolerance Education. Today, he moderates an online Holocaust remembrance group of over 300 members worldwide and is an active member of the Maryland-Washington, D.C. chapter of the World Federation of Child Survivors of the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the extraordinary life and achievements of Fred A. Kahn. Throughout his life, Mr. Kahn has worked tirelessly to make our world more tolerant and compassionate. He has made outstanding contributions to our government, our country, and our community, and I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation for his service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4118, the 50th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. First, let me say, I'm concerned that many Marylanders, including my constituents, are struggling to sign up for health insurance through the state-based Marketplace due to technical issues. With open enrollment coming to a close at the end of the month, I urge the Administration, state governments, and insurance carriers to come together to assist applicants in getting eligibility determinations and enrolling in coverage as soon as possible. I appreciated the guidance provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last week that would allow consumers the possibility of qualifying retroactive health insurance, tax credits and cost-sharing assistance. It's critical that CMS clarify that those individuals who take retroactive coverage will be protected from any undue penalties for the months prior to the effective date of retroactive coverage. The bill on the floor today is not about helping Marylanders or any other Americans, but rather about dismantling the Affordable Care Act and putting health insurance further out of reach for them. I want to be clear: the requirement that individuals take responsibility for ensuring they have adequate health insurance coverage was an idea espoused by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. It was carefully crafted and includes exemptions for individuals facing hardships and those who can't afford insurance. Delaying the provision for everyone for a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would increase the number of uninsured by one million this year and two million in 2015, and lead to higher premiums. It's obvious that delaying the provision will undermine the protections and reforms that have taken effect and will introduce more instability into market. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House leadership to put an end to these Affordable Care Act repeal votes. We want to work with you to identify parts of the law that can be improved and develop serious solutions. Unfortunately, today's bill is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 938, the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. I want to thank Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Deutch for their work on this important and broadly bipartisan bill. H.R. 938 will help strengthen the strategic partnership the U.S. shares with Israel in addition to helping Israel better meet the new security challenges it faces in the region. By enhancing cooperation between the U.S. and Israel in such areas as intelligence, trade and energy, H.R. 938 continues our commitment to helping Israel maintain its qualitative military edge while creating opportunities for U.S. companies and educational institutions to benefit from the deepening academic and commercial ties that will arise as a result of the bill. H.R. 938 also addresses homeland security priorities shared by our two countries by encouraging our cooperation against cyber threats and by advocating for the participation of Israel in the Visa Waiver Program--when it has fully met the requirements of membership. Permitting Israel to join the Visa Waiver Program should help reduce paperwork and make travel easier for citizens of both our countries. Membership in the program carries with it the obligation of full reciprocity. To that end, as the process moves forward, the State Department must work with Israel to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly in the program without any discrimination based on ethnicity, religion or race.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2641, which would limit public input in the federal decision-making process and short-circuit responsible review of taxpayer-funded projects. This legislation would create a new, convoluted review process for certain projects, setting rigid, arbitrary deadlines for even the most complex and hazardous plans and deeming them approved if the deadlines are not met. It allows for clear conflict of interest by giving project sponsors the authority to do their own environmental review. Finally, it confuses the process and risks litigation by blurring lines between state and federal law, and agency and private sector authority. Complicating our public input process will not jumpstart construction projects. The only way to do that is by replenishing the Highway Trust Fund to repair our crumbling roads and bridges, and investing in the backlog of already-approved water resources projects that are on hold due to lack of funds. I urge my colleagues to support infrastructure investment and vote no on this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2804, the so-called ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent (ALERT) Act and H.R. 899, the so-called ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.'' This week, the House took up a series of rehashed bills--under the guise of the ``Stop Government Abuse Week''--that would limit the ability of federal agencies to enforce commonsense rules and regulations. While supporters of H.R. 2804 and H.R. 899 claim they are needed to curb overregulation, in reality, they would prevent federal agencies from doing their jobs and working to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect consumer health and safety. My Republican colleagues contend that the two bills before us are a response to the ``tsunami'' of regulations under the Obama Administration. However, this is simply not true. In fact, federal agencies under President Obama have issued significantly less rules during his first four years in office when compared to President Bush's first term. Moreover, the ALERT Act would actually create more red tape by imposing unnecessary new procedures on agencies and adding over 60 new barriers in the federal rulemaking process. Much like the ALERT Act, H.R. 899 would also introduce uncertainty into agency decision-making and undermine the ability of agencies to provide critical public health and safety protections. It would also weaken our democracy by giving powerful special interests and private industry an unfair advantage in the rulemaking process. Specifically, it would require agencies to consult with private industry--but not most other stakeholders, such as public health or food safety experts-- before proposing rules. I was disappointed that amendments offered by Representative Cummings and Representative Connolly were not adopted. Rep. Cummings' amendment would have overturned a provision in the bill that directly compromises the autonomy of independent regulatory agencies--including the CFPB, SEC, and CPSC--by requiring that they report proposed rules to the OMB. Rep. Connolly's amendment would have simply evened the playing field and ensured that public interest organizations and other stakeholders are provided the same opportunity for consultation afforded to special interest groups and private industry under this bill. Over the last four years, President Obama has implemented significant reforms to the rulemaking process. In January 2010, the President signed an Executive Order that required agencies to determine if the benefits of proposed rules are justified considering their cost to society. He required an interagency review of overlapping rules and regulation between agencies that may prevent innovation in the private sector and instituted a policy to allow agencies to consider input from affected public and private stakeholders and experts when developing rules and regulations. There is also a mechanism in place that already requires agencies to adhere to specific requirements of Federal law before issuing a rule or regulation. The Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the Congressional Review Act all serve the purpose of making sure that agencies are not overstepping their bounds when issuing rules and enforcing existing regulations. At a time when Congress should be doing everything it can to create jobs and improve the economy, these bills are nothing but a distraction. They are unnecessary and potentially harmful to the public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose each of them.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3826, which would short-circuit an ongoing process to engage stakeholders and develop reasonable, effective controls on carbon pollution from power plants. This pollution poses a serious threat to public health. According to the American Public Health Association, about half of the U.S. population lives in areas where air pollution is linked to illness, including asthma, heart attacks, lung cancer, and stroke. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that carbon pollution is linked to climate change, causing sea-level rise and more extreme weather events across the globe. That is why the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution and safeguard our health and natural resources. Power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, but their carbon emissions are completely unregulated. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency is engaged with stakeholders to develop a rule for emissions for new power plants, and they plan to address existing power plants as well. These rules would use available technologies for carbon capture and sequestration. Today's legislation would halt that process. It leaves pollution controls on new power plants to the discretion of the plants themselves, which are unlikely to take action unless an industry-wide standard is in place. And it effectively repeals the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. By preventing any limitation on the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, this bill recklessly endangers public health and the environment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and someone who supported the original Biggert-Waters flood insurance reauthorization, I am keenly aware of the need for reform in this area. The federal flood insurance program is $24 billion in debt, and its below-market rates encourage development in environmentally sensitive and flood prone areas. Having said that, it has also become abundantly clear that the transition to market-based rates under the original Biggert-Waters bill has been unduly onerous for many homeowners, and the pace of that transition is in need of adjustment. Today's bipartisan compromise attempts to provide that adjustment in the form of greater predictability around rate increases for covered properties, paid for with a surcharge on all policyholders. While there were certainly other ways to address this issue, and I could have supported more reform than appears in this particular bill, I will vote for tonight's compromise in order to move this program forward.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am writing to recognize Nellie Longsworth of Maryland. As Founding President of Preservation Action, Ms. Longsworth was at the forefront of America's preservation movement, working tirelessly to protect historic places from destruction. In 1974, historic preservationists came together to create Preservation Action in order to preserve our historic assets and make historic preservation a national priority. From the historic rehabilitation tax credit to historic preservation funding, Ms. Longsworth and Preservation Action built and deployed a grassroots constituency empowered with information and training to advance these worthy goals. Mr. Speaker, Nellie Longsworth's career is the embodiment of the purposes underlying the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which read in part: The spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage; The historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; The preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans. All Americans who care about our nation's cultural resources are indebted to, and inspired by, Nellie Longsworth. As we observe National Historic Preservation Advocacy Week, preservationists from across the nation will honor Nellie Longsworth for her extraordinary legacy. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Nellie Longsworth as a Pioneer in Preservation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, H.R. 3193 is a clear attempt to undermine the independence and effectiveness of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As such, I oppose passage of this legislation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill in response to widespread market abuses that helped precipitate the financial crisis and is the first ever independent watchdog charged with the sole task of protecting the financial lives of America's families. Since its inception, the CFPB has handled nearly 270,000 consumer complaints and secured more than $3 billion in relief for almost 10 million consumers through enforcement actions against bad actors who were violating the law. It has established important oversight for industries ranging from payday lenders to debt collectors to credit reporting agencies. And it has generally received high marks from industry leaders and consumer advocates alike for the openness and evenhandedness of its operations. Not surprisingly, the Senate confirmed the CFPB's first director Richard Cordray by a bipartisan vote of 66-34 in the summer of last year. Rather than building on this track record of success, H.R. 3193 would weaken the CFPB by bureaucratizing its structure, placing additional constraints on its operations, slashing its funding and subjecting that funding to the political pressures of the annual appropriations process. If the majority really believed the annual appropriations process was necessary to ensure the proper oversight of our federal banking regulators, this legislation would be recommending similar treatment for the Federal Reserve, or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It doesn't--which tells you all you need to know about the consistency of the conviction underlying this bill. In my judgment, the CFPB is succeeding at its job of protecting consumers in a fair and transparent marketplace. Accordingly, I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague. I have listened all afternoon as my Republican colleagues have held forth about the importance of the First Amendment. No one is debating that. That is not what this bill is about, despite your best efforts to suggest it is. What this bill is about is letting organizations spend millions of dollars of secret money, secret money, to try to buy elections to serve their special interests. That is what this bill is about. Now, our Republican colleagues have talked repeatedly about the Treasury inspector general's report. I don't know if they have read the report, but one of the recommendations was for the IRS to revise its regulations and guidelines to clarify this particular area. I would have hoped that all of us would want the IRS out of the business of determining whether or not a 501(c)(4) is primarily involved in political activity or primarily involved in social welfare activity. I don't want them under the nose of every organization trying to figure it out, and that is why the IRS is trying to reform this area of the law. So why isn't that what our Republican colleagues want? Because this isn't about allowing those groups to exercise free speech. It is allowing those organizations to be used to channel secret money without disclosing those expenditures to the voters. That is what this is all about, because you can spend as much money as you want on political advocacy and campaigns. All you have to do is organize as a 527, which is another organization under the Tax Code which, by the way, is also tax exempt. So why isn't that good enough? You can say as much as you want, spend millions of dollars. I will tell you why. Because under 527's, people are spending all that money to influence elections, they have to disclose. They have to tell voters who they are spending millions of dollars to try and influence those votes. That is not good enough for our Republican colleagues. They want to preserve this messy situation because it allows all that secret money to flow into these campaigns. We believe voters have a right to know who is trying to spend millions of dollars to influence these votes, and by the way, eight of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court in Citizens United, a case which I had lots of problems with lots of parts of it, but eight of the nine Justices agree with us that transparency is important. Here is what Justice Kennedy said. These transparency laws ``impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities'' and ``do not prevent anyone from speaking,'' but they have ``a governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending.'' Eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices agree with what every poll shows, that the American people overwhelmingly want transparency in our elections. Because why? Transparency brings accountability. I think every American has an interest in knowing who is spending millions of dollars to try and get them elected to Congress, to serve particular special interests. So, Mr. Speaker, for goodness sakes, this isn't about the First Amendment. Everyone is in favor of the First Amendment. This is about allowing secret money in campaigns, and we should not allow that. It is against the public interest.

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, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended, and as the motion indicated, it addresses secret money in elections. I am trying to make sure we end that secret money. It also deals with the issue of extending unemployment insurance, which my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin) will discuss in a minute. But I want to focus on this issue of secret money because this resolution, what we are asking our Republican colleagues to join us on, is to vote on a very simple statement: to say that nothing in this act shall limit, restrict, or prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing regulations requiring the disclosure of secret political donors. Our Republican colleagues all afternoon have said this is about the First Amendment. This is about protecting the right of people to express their views. That is not what their bill is about. Everyone is in favor of people being able to express their views. As I indicated earlier, you can form what is known as a 527 organization; and whether you are an individual or an organization in that form, you can spend millions of dollars to try to influence the outcome of elections. What we are saying is the voters have a right to know who is bankrolling these campaign efforts. What we have seen over the last couple of years is a huge increase, an explosion of money being spent by outside groups to try to influence the outcome of elections to try to elect Members of Congress to support whatever interests those groups may support. This motion, what we are proposing, would still allow all this money to be spent. But--and here is the key--most of that money is now flowing through 501(c)(4) organizations because some groups have been abusing those organizations to allow them to use them as secret conduits, conduits to allow them to secretly fund campaigns. All we are saying is let's not take away the right and ability of the Treasury Department to adopt regulations to make sure we don't allow that secret money because I thought most of us agreed in transparency, and I thought most of us agreed in accountability. And I know that eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices, even in a controversial case, support transparency and disclosure. They say that is good for democracy. And you know what? Every poll shows that the American people overwhelmingly agree. So let's vote for disclosure and vote for this motion. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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