Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Donald Floyd, who has helped to improve the lives of millions of youth across our country through his outstanding efforts as Chief Executive Officer of National 4-H Council. Although Don has served as CEO of National 4-H Council for thirteen years, he still describes himself as ``a youth worker at heart.'' From his earliest days as Executive Director for Junior Achievement in Reading, Pennsylvania, to his current position at National 4-H Council, he has been driven by the knowledge that young people who are involved in positive youth development opportunities will create a healthier and more prosperous future for us all. Under Don's leadership, National 4-H Council adopted a new mission in the year 2000: ``To advance the 4-H youth development movement to build a world in which youth and adults learn, grow and work together as catalysts for positive change.'' Don's commitment to see National 4-H Council fulfill that mission is evidenced through his efforts to create the ``National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21st Century'' and the creation of the first national action agenda for youth policy. Through these activities, 4-H has grown into one of the world's largest youth development organizations, serving more than seven million youth in 50 countries. During Don's tenure, the 4-H movement has built upon the organization's history of bringing scientific development into rural areas to provide new and exciting programs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education to youth. Through these programs, young people across the country have the opportunity to study alternative energy, robotics and geographic technologies in an effort to get them engaged in STEM education and careers. Don has led 4-H in reaching out to important communities of youth, including those in urban areas, youth at risk of delinquency, children of military families, Native American youth and children of incarcerated parents. He has made a particular impact globally where 4-H is increasing its focus on international communities and identifying the role young people play in addressing the issue of food security. Don is focused on empowering independent country-led 4-H programs to increase their impact on young people; encouraging their youth to be the next generation of farmers, leaders and innovators; and expanding the reach of positive youth development worldwide. Throughout this growth, Don has maintained a commitment to the principle at the heart of 4-H: young people and adults working together to improve their communities. Through his ability to maintain the successful traditions of the past while identifying and pursuing opportunities for the future, Don has helped 4-H produce a generation of young people who are contributing citizens to their communities, their country and their world. As Don retires as CEO of National 4-H Council, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him on behalf of the millions of youth, parents and volunteers whose lives have been touched by his steadfast commitment to positive youth development and his outstanding efforts as the ultimate ``youth worker.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, while I recognize the many legitimate uses of derivatives in today's financial marketplace, I also believe it is critically important that derivatives be properly regulated so that end-users and consumers can reap their benefits without putting the larger economy at risk. For that reason, I think we need to tread carefully before making material modifications to the regulatory regime for derivatives established in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act-- and this note of caution is equally applicable to what might be described as piecemeal changes to Title VII of Dodd-Frank, given the inherently complex and interrelated nature of these sophisticated financial instruments. In that regard, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act would substantially revise Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to permit a broader array of derivatives transactions--including those involving commodity swaps, equity swaps and certain credit default swaps--to occur inside federally backed financial institutions, rather than in separately capitalized subsidiaries as required under current law. Impacted institutions argue that this existing ``push out'' requirement for these categories of derivatives places them at a disadvantage relative to their foreign competition by increasing the cost of those transactions and by effectively preventing the netting of positions between themselves and their customers. Additionally, proponents of H.R. 992 argue that Section 716 confers no meaningful additional protection to taxpayers in light of the stronger capital, margin and clearing requirements created by Dodd-Frank, and that it might even work at cross purposes with the Orderly Liquidation Authority created in Title II of the legislation. I am not opposed to making commonsense adjustments to improve the real world workability of the Dodd-Frank law. I want our financial institutions to be able to compete effectively for customers everywhere they operate. And I am not in favor of regulation that is either unnecessary or not accomplishing its intended objective in a cost- effective way. It is possible that Section 716 will prove to be that kind of regulation, but right now it is too soon to tell. Of particular importance when evaluating the ultimate value of Section 716 is the final scope of the forthcoming Volcker rule. If the final Volcker rule provides a strict definition of what activities constitute bona fide ``hedging'' and ``market making'', then proponents' arguments for this legislation will be strengthened. If, on the other hand, the final Volcker rule includes an overly broad definition of these activities, then the protections intended by Section 716 could become more important. Accordingly, I will be voting ``no'' on today's legislation, but remain open to revisiting this issue once the Volcker rule and other relevant rulemakings are finalized and in place.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am an advocate for consumer choice and appreciate the value of a variety of different business models in a competitive financial services marketplace. I also support full transparency regarding compensation arrangements and believe investors have a right to recommendations based on their best interests when receiving investment advice from financial services professionals. Consistent with these principles, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) are currently in the process of coordinating a harmonized ``fiduciary'' standard of care for financial services professionals offering investment advice to their clients. Rather than allowing the SEC and the DOL to complete their work, today's legislation would prejudge the outcome of the ongoing rulemakings and have the practical effect of delaying implementation of final harmonized rules to protect consumers' retirement savings from conflict of interests and potentially deceptive or abusive practices. Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on October 22, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and missed three votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 551, rollcall No. 552, and rollcall No. 553.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of passage of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act today, although I have serious concerns with the changes to public and environmental review made in the bill. This long-overdue authorization of Army Corps projects is critical to continue infrastructure maintenance and construction and environmental restoration in our nation's waterways. In my home state of Maryland, the Corps' work is essential for the operations of the Port of Baltimore, which supports thousands of jobs. Additionally, its environmental protection and oyster recovery work bolsters our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. However, I am deeply concerned that the bill goes too far in its attempts to expedite project review. While we all support prompt analysis of federal projects, the NEPA process is critical to ensuring that proposed projects are cost-effective, environmentally sound, and in the best interest of the surrounding communities. Corps projects in particular are often large and complex, with impacts across waterways and ecosystems. We must provide adequate time for public and agency review and comment to avoid lasting environmental damage and costly litigation. While I will vote today to move this bill forward, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the conference process to preserve a robust review and oversight process for all proposed projects.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this Sense of the House that the Durbin-Coburn amendment on crop insurance should be included in a farm bill conference report. This measure limits crop insurance premium subsidies for the wealthiest producers, saving more than $900 million over ten years. The bipartisan amendment was adopted in the Senate by a 59-33 vote, and enjoys bipartisan House support as well. As we look to trim spending in all areas of the budget, limiting taxpayer handouts to farmers making over $750,000 is a sensible place to start. Currently there are no limits to crop insurance premium subsidies or payments. This proposal doesn't eliminate assistance for those well-off producers, but simply limits it. In fact, I supported an amendment last June--offered by my colleague Congressman Ron Kind-- which would have shrunk taxpayer subsidies for crop insurance even further than the measure being considered today. I look forward to working with other Members of the House, and our colleagues in the Senate, to reform the nation's agriculture safety net in a way that provides security to our farmers while reducing the deficit.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So, Mr. Speaker, just so I understand the situation, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So I just want to understand, Mr. Speaker. This standing rule of the House, which I have here, has been altered by the House. Is that what the Speaker is saying?

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. When was that alteration made?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. House Resolution 368. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to make sure I have the right one. I have in my hand H. Res. 368, October 1. ``Resolved,'' and section 2 of that says, ``Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the majority leader or his designee.'' Is that what you are referring to, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And the standing rule of the House reads, Mr. Speaker, ``When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.'' Mr. Speaker, my question is: Does the parliamentary status of the bill meet the requirements of rule XXII, clause 4?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The standing rule of the House is rule XXII, clause 4; is that correct?

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's table H.J. Res. 59 with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, to recede from the House amendment and concur in the Senate amendment to open the government now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. H. Res. 368 changed the standing rules of the House to take away from any Member of the House the privilege of calling up the Senate bill to immediately reopen the government; is that right?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So a privileged motion, Mr. Speaker, would have allowed any Member of this House--Republican or Democrat--to call up the Senate bill to open the government; is that right?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But, Mr. Speaker, a privileged resolution, as cited in rule XXII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House would allow any Member of the House to offer that resolution; is that right?

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think the Chair, just as I understood, said that that was changed so that it no longer would be a privileged motion for any Member, but it would be exclusively the right of the Republican leader or his designee. Am I right about that?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, why are the rules rigged to keep the government shut down?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I renew my motion that under the regular standing rules of the House, clause 4, rule XXII, the House take up the Senate amendments and open the government now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just want to understand, Mr. Speaker. The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any Member to move to vote to open the government and gave that right exclusively to the Republican leader; is that right?