Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3964, a bill that undermines long-standing local, state, and Federal agreements on the California water supply and creates a dangerous precedent for similar Congressional overreach in other states. As the Governor of California said, this bill ``falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the scarcity of water supplies.'' Instead, it picks winners and losers, prioritizing some interests above others and disrupting years of collaboration to balance water needs. The President has directed his Administration to work with California and local jurisdictions to provide information, flexibility in federal law, and emergency grant assistance to respond to the drought. Congress should not act unilaterally to preempt the efforts the State has already undertaken to respond to this disaster.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the career of a distinguished servant of Congress in the field of foreign affairs, defense and trade. Later this month, Edward Bruner, Ph.D., will retire from the Congressional Research Service after 23 years of outstanding service to the legislative branch. Dr. Bruner joined CRS in 1991 after a 27-year career in the United States Army that was highlighted by service in Vietnam, teaching Geography at the United States Military Academy at West Point, and command of an armor battalion at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. From 1991-94, he was a specialist in national defense at CRS, where he advised on such topics as Army transformation and modernization, peacekeeping operations, and the appropriate size of the U.S. military. In 1994, in recognition of his leadership abilities, he was asked to head the Defense Policy and Arms Control Section of the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, where he supervised the day-to-day research activities of a team of senior CRS analysts and specialists. In 2004, he was asked to assume a greater leadership role and was named Deputy Assistant Director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, where he has served for the past ten years. Dr. Bruner's tenure at CRS has been marked by his unparalleled dedication to the U.S. Congress and the men and women of CRS' Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. Whether as a national defense specialist, Section Head, or, ultimately, as Deputy Assistant Director, Dr. Bruner's high professional standards ensured that Congress received timely and authoritative policy analysis of the highest order. When he assumed a leadership role at CRS, he focused his efforts on helping to build a world-class team of managers, analysts, and support staff designed to support the rapidly evolving needs of Congress. No matter how demanding his day-to-day schedule, he always found time to be a mentor, counselor and friend to others, whether it was to CRS staff, new congressional staffers, or newly-elected Members of Congress. His ability to frame policy issues and organize research efforts for complex and multi-faceted policy challenges, combined with his deft personal touch, inspired the respect and loyalty of the entire Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division team. Dr. Edward Bruner leaves behind him not only a distinguished public service career but a legacy of leadership and mentorship that will have a lasting impact on CRS. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude and appreciation to him for his 50 years of service to our nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our nation's public lands have always required balanced management for a variety of uses for the American people. And while I am pleased to see a public lands bill on the Floor of this House that acknowledges uses beyond oil and gas drilling, I regret that it once again fails to meet the balance necessary to responsibly manage our lands for generations to come. I don't think there is any disagreement in the House over the importance of outdoor recreation on public lands. More than 75 percent of federal lands are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. However, in order to ensure that these areas are available for the future, all uses must be balanced with conservation. And today's bill would override critical environmental protections while depriving hunters and fisherman from offering input on land use decisions. The bill also replaces the only federal advisory committee with a voice for the hunting community with a new council, removing representation from hunting outreach and education groups and sportsmen and sportswomen at-large in favor of representatives from the firearms, ranching, and agriculture industries. Finally, it would allow for guns at certain Army Corps facilities, without exemption for public safety or national security concerns. I have joined with Mr. Holt and members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Caucus to offer an amendment to this bill to clarify that the Secretary of Interior has the authority to plan for a changing climate, which poses a real threat to outdoor recreation through sea level rise, drought, and wildfire. It will also lead to changes in hunting seasons, migratory patterns, and invasive species populations. While we should be taking action here in Congress to address climate change and its impacts on recreational hunting and fishing, this amendment ensures that we don't limit the Secretary's ability to plan for these developments. I urge my colleagues to support it. While there are parts of this bill that would get unanimous support from the House, it contains deeply flawed provisions that jeopardize the condition of public lands. I urge my colleagues to reject it and work on a consensus bill that guarantees recreational opportunities for generations of American sportsmen and women.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7, the deceivingly titled ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Let's be clear, federal policy--including the Affordable Care Act--already prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. The bill on the floor today would dramatically restrict the freedom of women to use their own money to purchase health insurance that covers reproductive health services including abortion. Under the bill, women and families would be denied access to tax credits to purchase any health plan in the health insurance Marketplaces that includes abortion services even if they use their own money to pay for coverage for those services. Additionally, the bill would deny small business owners tax credits if they offer coverage that includes abortion to their employees even though large employers can still offer such tax exempt coverage. Under this bill, millions of American women would be denied access to comprehensive reproductive health care--whether they purchase insurance in the Marketplaces or receive it through their employers. Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose her own health care is fundamental and today's bill is a direct attack on that right. This bill was a mistake the first time it was proposed, and it remains a mistake today. I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on women and instead I urge House Republicans to focus on extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend. Madam Speaker, what we are seeing here is an abuse of process. We have one rule governing a bill that is an assault on women's health care rights, combined with the same rule for a 900-page farm bill that was filed at 7:30 last night. I know a lot of people around here claim to be speed readers, but we are supposed to have a vote on the farm bill on Wednesday. Some people may decide to vote for it, and some people may decide to vote against it. What we are asking, Madam Speaker, is that we should all agree that this House--Republicans and Democrats alike--should have a chance to vote on a bill that says we will take the savings from cutting back on agriculture subsidies and use those savings to pay for an extension of emergency unemployment insurance for over 1.5 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are out there looking for work every day in an economy where there are still three people looking for every one job. That is what we are asking for, Madam Speaker, with respect to defeating the previous question and letting us have a vote. Now, the Speaker has said repeatedly over the last couple of weeks that he would be open to extending unemployment insurance if we would find a way to pay for it. We have a way to pay for it. Mr. Levin and I went to the Rules Committee and said, Okay. Let's let the whole House vote today after the farm bill passes, if it does pass on Wednesday, and say, Let's use those savings for this important purpose. They said no. They didn't want this House to have that right. So now each of us-- Republicans and Democrats alike--will have the opportunity to vote to decide whether this body can decide to spend the savings from cutting ag subsidies to help 1.5 million people in their districts and around the country who are struggling right now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend. By the way, it doesn't just help those struggling families. The Congressional Budget Office says it helps all of us--it helps the small businesses and merchants in our communities--because, if those struggling families can't pay the rent or the mortgage or go out and buy groceries, who does it hurt? It also hurts the local merchants and small businesses. So, Madam Speaker, for goodness sakes, if people want to vote against the idea of using the savings from cutting the ag subsidies to help 1.3 million Americans--if you want to vote ``no''--go for it, but for goodness sakes, let the people's House have that vote. Let the people's House decide whether we want to help 1.3 million Americans. I hope this will weigh heavily on the conscience of the House.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3362. It's very important for the administration to disclose data on enrollments in coverage through the health care Marketplaces, at the same frequency as it does for Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and other federal programs. In fact, Monday's monthly report provided extensive national and State-by-State data for December, breaking it down by gender, age, and financial assistance status of new enrollees, as well as the levels of coverage selected. Today's bill is not is not about enhancing data disclosure in the Marketplaces. Rather, its goal appears to be to tie the hands of State and federal agencies with unnecessary, unrealistic requirements, and delay their efforts to enroll people in quality, affordable coverage. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the FY14 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This is not perfect legislation. It falls far short of the funding levels necessary to make vital investments in education, scientific research, and infrastructure that we need to ensure our nation will remain at the cutting edge of the global economic competition. However, it is a significant improvement over the immediate and deep cuts we would have faced under sequestration and allows us to make important choices about our budget priorities. Today's bill makes vital investments in children and families. While it does not include the President's full early childhood education proposal, it gives a major boost to Head Start and Early Head Start and continues funding for the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant. It includes enough funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children to meet the need in the coming year. However, while it brings funding for K-12 and special education grant programs almost up to pre-sequestration levels, we need a far greater investment in these programs to keep our promise to America's children. The bill also increases funding for scientific research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of Science. However, while it provides a significant increase for the National Institutes for Health, it does not completely repair the damage done by sequestration and continues to underfund vital research for lifesaving cures. Funding also falls short at the National Science Foundation. These are investments that we must make in the future to remain competitive in the global economy. The bill also includes full funding for important safety and reliability improvements at WMATA, an essential investment for my constituents and for the federal government, which relies on the system to bring thousands of employees to work every day. It includes $70 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program to restore the health of a resource that is critical to the environment and economy in my home state of Maryland. However, I am disappointed that the bill continues to fund Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) at a level above the Pentagon's request. My colleague Representative Mick Mulvaney and I worked on a bipartisan basis to remove this excess funding during consideration of the defense budget in the House and in the final FY14 Defense Authorization bill. At a time when we are stretching every dollar to meet our nation's needs, we should not create a slush fund for unrequested defense spending. I also continue to oppose the inclusion of many unnecessary policy riders, such as those related to the District of Columbia and Guantanamo, that are regularly added to appropriations bills. Today's legislation includes security assistance for Egypt. While Egypt and the United States maintain a longstanding partnership, the Egyptian government must work towards a peaceful democratic transition. I encourage the President to condition the release of aid on progress toward an inclusive, democratic government that strengthens human rights and the rule of law. Finally, today's bill includes a much-needed and much-deserved one percent cost-of-living increase for the 230,000 wage grade federal employees--an issue I've raised as necessary to ensure fairness among public servants. It also includes a provision contained in legislation I introduced with my colleague Representative Mike Thompson, H.R. 3808, that exempts medically retired personnel and survivor benefit plan annuitants from the temporarily reduced cost-of-living-adjustment provisions of the recently-passed budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, particularly one of this magnitude. However, this bill represents an important compromise that will move us forward, provide more certainty, and prevent another costly, unnecessary government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Reverend Elizabeth Carpenter, who ministered to hundreds of families as rector of St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Damascus for more than thirteen years. Sadly, Reverend Carpenter passed away on January 3, 2014. Born and raised in Mobile, Alabama, Reverend Carpenter graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Duke University in 1963. Her first job was as a parish secretary for St. Peter's Episcopal Church in New York City. She later worked as a computer software designer for John Hancock Mutual and Humble Oil (now Exxon Mobil). At that time, the term ``software designer'' didn't even exist--she was a pioneer in that field. At the age of 47, Reverend Carpenter heard her call to ministry. She enrolled in Harvard Divinity School, where she received her Master of Divinity degree in 1991. She was ordained a deacon by the Episcopal Church of Dallas that June. On July 22, 1992, Reverend Carpenter was ordained into the priesthood by the Diocese of Massachusetts. She served several parishes in Massachusetts until she was called to be rector of St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Damascus, Maryland in August 1997. St. Anne's longest-tenured rector, Reverend Carpenter served from 1997 until her retirement in January 2011. During that time, she touched the lives of hundreds of families. She preached some 1,200 times to the people of St. Anne's, performed hundreds of weddings and baptisms, and comforted hundreds of families at funerals and memorial services. Without a doubt, Reverend Carpenter was part of the heart and soul of the St. Anne's community. Reverend Carpenter brought wisdom and a steady hand to St. Anne's. Under her leadership, a beautiful new sanctuary was constructed and the church's 50th anniversary was celebrated. Her dedication inspired many new families to join the St. Anne's community. Moreover, Reverend Carpenter was well-respected by her colleagues in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. She preached love and compassion and was an inspiration to her parishioners. Places of worship play an indispensable role in our communities. Reverend Carpenter helped strengthen Damascus and the surrounding communities through her years of service and dedication to St. Anne's. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life and deeds of this very special woman and in offering condolences to Reverend Carpenter's family, friends and the entire St. Anne's community. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3811. I feel strongly that the public and private sector should establish clear rules to protect Americans' personally identifiable information and an obligation to notify them promptly of any security or privacy breaches. The bill establishes a 48 hour notification requirement for any breaches of personally identifiable information from the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces. I would like to see an even shorter notice period, perhaps within 24 hours. However, whatever standard we use should apply to other government information systems. Moreover, we should take a comprehensive approach that also considers standards to protect consumers from involuntary disclosures of sensitive information from systems in the private sector. For example, private health insurance companies, which store large amounts personal health information, should also be subject to privacy and notification requirements. The recent incidents such as the massive data breaches at Target and Neiman Marcus illustrate the need for standards to be applied across the internet. This bill's failure to protect consumers from the wide array of potential security lapses reveals it for what it is--simply another politically motivated attack on the Affordable Care Act. The obvious goal is to scare people away from using the internet-based Marketplaces to sign up for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The truth is there have been no successful attacks on the site, it is continually being monitored, and stringent protocols exist should a breach occur. Moreover, because the Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing health conditions, the website does not collect or store detailed health personal health information. This hastily drafted legislation also contains other flaws. Specifically, it lacks important exceptions for law enforcement requirements, which could threaten ongoing investigations. Mr. Speaker, today's bill is not a policy solution; it's a scare tactic. There is no doubt that we must strengthen security features of all systems that contain American's personally identifiable information. I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats on crafting serious, workable legislation to ensure the security of sensitive information on the internet.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2279, which would needlessly complicate efforts to clean up our most dangerous Superfund sites by letting polluters off the hook for cleanup costs and creating conflict and confusion between state and federal law. One in four Americans lives within three miles of a hazardous waste site, frequently in vulnerable communities. These sites endanger human health, increasing risk for cancer, birth defects, acute poisoning, and injury from fire or explosion. They are also blights in communities-- vacant lots and underutilized land that that impede economic development. Our nations' Superfund law, passed in 1980, gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to compel polluters to pay to repair the damage they caused, either by cleaning up themselves or by reimbursing the federal government for its cleanup efforts. The cleanup process requires assessing and ranking sites to prioritize the most hazardous areas, and working with states and private parties to remediate the land. Today's bill would undermine the requirement that high-polluting industries obtain insurance or post bonds to ensure that areas would be cleaned up if they become Superfund sites, reducing the incentive to limit contamination and sticking taxpayers with the bill if cleanup is necessary. It would prohibit the EPA from enforcing financial responsibility requirements in any state that sets its own rules, even if those rules are inadequate to protect taxpayers. It also confuses federal and state responsibilities on cleanup sites, subjecting federal employees to fines or imprisonment if they fail to comply with state orders even when they conflict with federal law. This confusion will only lead to increased litigation, delay, and wasted resources. Superfund sites are dangerous threats to public health and economic progress in our most vulnerable communities, and we should be working to make the cleanup process as seamless and efficient as possible. This legislation would hinder that effort, and I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of final passage of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act. I commend Chairman McKeon, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Smith, and Ranking Member Inhofe for crafting a bipartisan bill that both strengthens the security of our nation and provides for vital programs that benefit our men and women in uniform and their civilian colleagues. While not perfect, today's compromise legislation makes many key improvements over the Defense Authorization bill that the House voted on earlier this year. I am particularly encouraged that the final agreement we voted on today includes $80.7 billion in funding for overseas contingency operations (OCO), which is in line with the Pentagon's request. This is an important change from the $85.8 billion that was included in the House-passed authorization in June. Today's bill provides sufficient funds to fully meet the President's FY 2014 request for the war in Afghanistan while ensuring that the overseas contingency operations account will not become a slush fund for unrequested defense spending. The final agreement also eases restrictions on the ability of DoD to transfer Guantanamo detainees and takes an important step in addressing our indefinite detention policy there. In particular, I am pleased that this bill drops a provision that would have barred the use of funds to transfer prisoners to Yemen and authorizes the Pentagon to transfer detainees to other foreign countries under certain conditions. More needs to be done when addressing our indefinite detention policy, but provisions such as these represent significant progress. I am also encouraged by the changes this bill makes with regards to how the military responds to sexual assault cases. It adopts Senate language to bar individuals from joining the military if they have been convicted of a sex-related offense; it imposes a minimum sentence of dishonorable discharge or dismissal on those found guilty; and it prohibits commanders from dismissing a court martial finding or reducing the offense level of guilty findings. Finally, the compromise bill does make some progress on allowing the Department of Defense to execute the New START Treaty. Specifically, it allows DoD to begin planning and preparation for implementing the force structure to meet the required limits of the New START Treaty. However, it still goes too far in limiting the President's ability to fully implement the treaty and set the country's nuclear policy. I am also disappointed that this legislation authorizes the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the Pentagon continues to say is unnecessary. This provision disregards the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and seeks to tie the President's hands in determining military requirements in other parts of the world. This bill also contains provisions which ignore DoD recommendations and continues to fund unrequested weapons systems and military aircraft, including the M1A2 Abrams tank, the C-130 AMP, and the UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter. Despite these reservations, this compromise legislation is a marked improvement over the bill the House passed earlier this year. It contains many important provisions that will strengthen our national security while also providing for our troops and their families.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gabriella Miller, a brave little girl who was taken from the world much too soon. I know Gabriella's parents are here in the House gallery and I want to express to them how sorry I am for their loss. Gabriella was a real fighter, not only for herself but for the thousands of other children across the country who are battling cancer. I'm pleased to join my colleague, Michael McCaul, in co-chairing the Congressional Childhood Cancer Caucus in the House. Over the years, I've had the privilege of meeting hundreds of young people like Gabriella and families like the Millers. I've heard their heartbreak and frustration, and share their commitment to finding a cure for this devastating disease. The National Institutes of Health play a critical role in this effort--conducting basic research toward finding cures, supporting clinical trials, and developing treatments for childhood cancer and other pediatric illnesses. I firmly believe that as a nation we should be investing more in pediatric research but the bill on the floor won't do that. Today's bill purports to increase pediatric research by $13 million per year by terminating public financing for political conventions. Assuming last year's 5 percent sequester at NIH was spread evenly across their programs, then pediatric research would have been cut by roughly $182 million in 2013. The bill's $13 million would return less than 10 percent of the funding to pediatric research that was lost to sequester last year. On top of that, the bill doesn't actually appropriate any funding, but instead authorizes appropriations, which does not guarantee that these funds will be available. Mr. Speaker, today's bill isn't a sincere effort to increase funding for pediatric research and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Since the Republican majority took office in 2011, they've racked up a dismal record on NIH, having cut its budget by total of $4.2 billion or 13 percent when adjusted for inflation. If Republicans are really serious about pediatric research, and in fact want to put kids first, then they should work with us to replace the sequester with a balanced budget package.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to emphasize a point that we both made, which is that if we had our druthers, we would have approached this issue differently. I do want to say with respect to some of the offsets, there are many of us who would have preferred to see the closures of many special interest tax breaks as part of the offsets in this legislation. We hope that as we go forward, we would agree that that is also a kind of wasteful spending in the Tax Code. If you give a special interest in this country some tax preference not enjoyed by others, you are simply raising the burden on everybody else. It is simply a form of spending through the Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, as we address these issues going forward, whether it is replacing the sequester or reducing the deficit, as part of a balanced approach, we think we should take those into account as well. We also proposed, as part of this measure, applying some of the excessive subsidies that we give to agribusinesses as part of the offsets, and our colleagues rejected those. As has been said, this is a product of compromise, but I do want to let people know that it has been our preference to close some of those special interest tax breaks and use some of those excessive agriculture subsidies as offsets here rather than some of the provisions that are before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a great member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), my friend.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a terrific member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), a good friend and colleague, one of the conferees who worked with us to move this agreement to a place where it was supported by many of us on the Democratic side, the assistant Democratic leader.

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