Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals Protection Act,'' a bill that has very little to do with development of rare earth elements or minerals that are vulnerable to supply disruption. The bill before us today is so broadly drafted that it would reduce or eliminate environmental review for almost all type of mines on public land, including common materials like sand, clay, and gravel. It needlessly limits judicial review of mining activities. And it arbitrarily prioritizes mining over every other use of public lands, including hunting, fishing, grazing, and conservation. If the majority would like to encourage production of truly strategic and critical minerals on public lands, we should work together on a targeted solution that develops our natural resources while protecting our environment. Today's bill is not that solution. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of First Lieutenant Brian Thacker of the United States Army. First Lieutenant Thacker was with the 92nd Field Artillery Regiment and received his Medal of Honor for actions of great gallantry on March 31, 1971 in Vietnam. When First Lieutenant Thacker's base was attacked he assisted in its defense and remained in position when it became apparent that evacuation of the base was necessary. He organized and directed the withdrawal of the remaining friendly forces with complete disregard for his personal safety. First Lieutenant Thacker remained inside the perimeter alone to provide covering fire until all friendly forces had escaped. Due to his selfless acts, First Lieutenant Thacker remained trapped behind enemy lines for eight days before he was finally rescued. It is for his valiant efforts and selfless spirit in service to our nation that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of First Lieutenant Brian Thacker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 301, a bill to establish a Special Envoy to promote religious freedom for minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia and to applaud Representative Frank Wolf for his leadership on this timely and important issue. No one should be made to feel that the practice of their religion is a crime or a source of shame. When people are persecuted in the name of one religion against another, such persecution violates their inalienable right to worship as they choose and promotes political instability. Around the world, many conflicts are rooted in sectarian differences and rivalries. Today in Syria, Christians and other religious minorities are in direct peril and are the target of abuse and persecution as a result of the civil war. On April 22, 2013, Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo Boulose Yazigi and the Syriac Archbishop of Aleppo, Yohanna Ibrahim were kidnapped by a faction of rebel extremists while carrying out humanitarian work in the area around the city. To this day they remain missing. To the extent the United States can promote religious tolerance, we advance the cause of human rights, justice and peace around the globe. This bill creates a special envoy in order to monitor and combat acts of religious intolerance and incitement targeted against religious minorities and to work with foreign governments to address laws that are inherently discriminatory toward religious minority communities. I encourage my colleagues to support of H.R. 301. By helping protect minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, we contribute to the safety of minorities all over the world who live in fear for their lives merely because they practice a different religion than those around them.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, student loan debt in our country tops $1 trillion, burdening graduates with high repayment as they begin their working lives and preventing them from making other purchases, like a home or a car. This is a problem that requires a comprehensive solution that includes affordable financial assistance and collaboration with states and colleges to keep costs down. Today's bill, while imperfect, will prevent rates from doubling immediately on loans for the neediest students. It locks in rates for each new loan, providing more certainty than the House Republican proposal, which I opposed when it passed the House earlier this year. It includes a cap, preventing rates from skyrocketing in the future. I remain concerned, however, about increasing rates for students in the long-term, and would urge future action on this issue as rates rise. Ultimately, we must look at the alternatives available today. Had I been in the Senate, I would have voted against this bill in an effort to get a better long-term deal for students. However, now that it has passed the Senate and is before us on the House Floor with no opportunity for amendment, we are faced with a choice between keeping the doubled student loan rate or reducing it for this year's students. Therefore, I will vote for this bill today, but will seek to amend this law in the coming years should rates rise and further burden our nation's students. Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act will provide a good opportunity to revisit this issue and address college costs in a more comprehensive way, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that effort.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It's become a ritual with the House Republican Leadership to devote the dying hours of the legislative calendar to the task of beating up on federal employees. You'll remember that the last time we found ourselves in this position was on January 1, 2013. As the clock ticked down the minutes closing the 112th Congress, instead of addressing the host of pressing financial matters that threatened the fiscal health of this nation, my Republican colleagues chose to focus those precious minutes on legislation to claw-back the meager .5% COLA promised to federal employees when the Continuing Resolution expired in March of that year. As this country faced a wave of serious economic difficulties, instead of spending the time focusing on legislation to address these challenges, Republicans in Congress turned their attention to squeezing even more out of the hard working federal employees who had already contributed $60 billion of their pay as part of a two-year pay freeze. By no fault of their own, our dedicated federal workers have become pawns in a ritualistic game fashioned to distract the American public from the real challenges confronting our country. This week, this body considers a number of bills that again scapegoat federal employees. I rise today to ask my colleagues not to fall for this game again and to reject this gratuitous and disrespectful attack on our federal workers. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act because the bill eliminates due process protections for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) by allowing agency heads to fire SES employees without giving them advance notice or an opportunity to address the allegations against them. The bill would place the burden of proof on SES employees by requiring them to prove their innocence when seeking reinstatement. Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight tried to amend the bill to preserve existing due process protections for these employees, but their efforts were rejected. Further, the bill would limit bonuses federal workers may receive to 5% of basic pay during sequestration and limit the number of Senior Executives who may receive performance awards to 33% of those eligible in each agency. If passed, this bill could further harm our government's ability to attract the best and the brightest managers, make it more difficult to retain current employees and exacerbate personnel shortages in nursing, information technology, cybersecurity, and acquisition where shortages have been a major concern for some time. Federal employees dedicate their lives to the service of our nation. They protect our borders, care for our wounded service members and work to discover treatments and cures for diseases that touch virtually every American family. With their diligence and unwavering devotion, they have earned the right to be treated with respect and they do not deserve to be the target of arbitrary attacks seemingly just to fill space on the legislative calendar.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called Regulations in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. This misguided legislation would overturn the long-established process for the promulgation of major federal policy rules and tie the health, environment, and economy of our nation to the ability of Congress to act. Considering we are working through the 113th Congress--which is on pace to be the least productive Congress in history--this is a terrible idea. Federal agencies issue rules to implement laws that are passed by Congress and signed by the President. Federal agencies cannot issue rules on policies Congress has not authorized them to act on, and the very laws the Congress passes explain in detail the authority of the agency to issue rules and often mandate the very rule the agency must issue. The purpose of this process is to allow the policy experts at those agencies to conduct the research, seek the public input, and craft the most efficient and effective way to issue the rules to implement the legislation that Congress has passed. This bill would insert partisan politics into this deliberative and complex process, undermining the ability of these agencies to protect the public's health and safety. Besides ignoring the fact that the agencies are simply issuing rules to implement the statutes that the Congress has enacted, supporters of this legislation forget that there already exists a mechanism through which Congress can review and reject rules issued by executive agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Congress can help reject a rule if it passes a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of receiving the rule (the President must also sign the resolution). Additionally, Congress has considerable authority over federal rulemaking through the appropriations process, where it can restrict the use of funds to implement certain rules. Finally, the Congress can continue to pass legislation to reform the rulemaking process, such as when it enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. This legislation would cause any major rule issued by a federal agency to be automatically rejected unless Congress acts in approval within 70 days. The legislation does not guarantee that there will be an up-or-down vote in that time period; therefore, it leaves these important rules vulnerable to partisan obstruction and inaction. Congressional Republicans exemplify the danger of this approach through their repeated rejection of all compromise and obstruction of efforts to move our country and our economy forward. Giving one chamber of Congress de-facto veto-power over Executive Branch agencies would put at risk our environment, inject uncertainty into the economy for our businesses, and endanger the health and well-being of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 41, a bill encouraging peace and reunification on the Korean Peninsula, I rise to encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill. This month, hundreds of Korean War veterans will gather in the nation's capital to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice. In recognition of their service and for those who continue to serve on the peninsula to this day, we pause to express our appreciation and support. The Korean War began when North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950. A peace treaty was never signed, only an armistice marking the end of hostilities. Today, Korea remains a divided nation, separating more than 10 million South Koreans, including 100,000 Korean-Americans, from their families in the North. As we pause to recognize the sacrifice of those who fought and died in the conflict, we must also remember all the others who were affected as well. This resolution reaffirms the commitment of the US to our alliance with South Korea and our commitment to working with South Korea to encourage the North to cease its nuclear proliferation activities so that talks to reunify the peninsula can commence.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this so- called Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would be more accurately titled the Blocking Public Health Protections Act. The best I can say about this bill is that it is going precisely nowhere--and for good reason. Under this legislation, the Department of Energy would be required to waste increasingly limited resources undertaking costly and time- consuming review of certain ``energy-related'' EPA rules. The term ``energy-related'' is not defined, and no time limit is given for completion of DoE's duplicative analysis. As a result, H.R. 1582 would have the practical--and intended-- effect of blocking or indefinitely delaying important public health protections, even if the Secretary of Energy never exercises his authority to overturn the EPA--protections like the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, which will reduce mercury and other harmful toxins from power plants; or the vehicle tailpipe standards, which, ironically, are already saving consumers money at the pump. Madam Chair, Americans expect their government to ensure that their air is healthy and their water is clean. H.R. 1582 is poorly drafted, ill-conceived legislation that would take us in precisely the opposite direction. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2397, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2014. I commend Chairmen Rogers and Young and Ranking Members Lowey and Visclosky 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. I am particularly encouraged that the bipartisan amendment I offered with Rep. Mulvaney, Rep. Coffman, and Rep. Murphy was adopted and included in final passage. Our amendment ensures that the account to fund our operations in Afghanistan and overseas contingency operations will not become a slush fund for unrequested defense spending. The FY2014 funding for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas contingences is at the level the DoD and military leaders say is necessary for the mission, and the underlying bill had originally provided $5 billion more than our military leaders say is needed for overseas contingency operations (OCO). Our amendment eliminates $3.5 billion of the excess funds. It provides sufficient funds to fully meet the President's FY 2014 request for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas contingences, as well as an additional $1.5 billion to address any shortfalls in Guard and Reserve Equipment Modernization. I am also pleased that this legislation fully funds the Sexual Assault and Prevention Office (SAPRO) at $156.5 million and includes a new provision establishing dismissal or dishonorable discharge as a minimum mandatory sentence for individuals subject to a Uniformed Code of Military Justice court-martial. In addition, I strongly support an amendment that Rep. Speier introduced--and which was adopted--that provides increased funding to train investigators to properly investigate sexual assault related offenses. I also support Rep. Bonamici's amendment in support of preserving the 34 C-23 Sherpa aircraft operated by the Army National Guard. These aircraft are vital to the Maryland National Guard and I am pleased that this amendment was adopted. I also strongly support the provision that fully funds the request of $220.3 million for Iron Dome and includes $173 million above the request of $95.8 million for the Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs. Lastly, I support the amendment which would require the Executive Branch to receive Congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria. This reinforces the role of Congress in making decisions that would put our men and women in the Armed Forces at risk. With regards to Congressman Amash's amendment, I have submitted a separate statement for the record to address that vote. While I voted for this defense bill, I do so with reservations. This bill deprives deserving employees of the Department of Defense of a modest cost-of-living adjustment by denying them of a 1 percent COLA proposed by the Administration. It is unreasonable to ask federal employees, who have already disproportionately sacrificed for deficit reduction, to bear the burden again. This legislation also includes a misguided provision which would continue funding restrictions that prohibit the construction or modification of a detention facility in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, and would constrain DoD's ability to transfer Guantanamo detainees, including those who have already been designated for transfer to other countries. Unfortunately, Representative Moran's amendment to lift the prohibition on using funds to transfer or release any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay was rejected. This legislation also contains provisions which ignore DoD recommendations and blocks the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options are readily available. While I support the funding level contained in the Defense Appropriations bill, I strongly oppose the overall House Republican Budget. That budget would dramatically cut our investments in education, scientific research, infrastructure, Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and programs to provide and supply for the most vulnerable. I strongly support President Obama's position that we will not boost defense spending at the expense of the other investments needed to support economic growth. After all, our national security is directly tied to the strength of our economy and putting Americans back to work. For these reasons, I support President Obama's threat to veto final passage of this legislation unless it ``passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and national security for our economy to compete in the future.'' However, it is my hope that these issues will be resolved in conference with the Senate and that I will be able to support its final passage. Statement of Representative Chris Van Hollen regarding Congressman Amash's amendment H. Amdt. 413 to the FY14 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397) We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. While we must ensure that our nation has the necessary and appropriate tools to protect itself, we must also ensure that those tools do not undermine the very liberties we seek to protect. I have always been a staunch defender of the 4th Amendment, and have long opposed the broad language in Section 215 of the so-called PATRIOT Act (along with the similarly broad language in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). In fact, I voted against the reauthorization of Section 215 in 2011 and Section 702 in 2012. I am pleased that others are now joining the conversation in seeking to amend and improve these sections. I voted against the Amash amendment because I did not believe that it was the most comprehensive and effective way to address this important issue. I have opposed Section 215 because the ``tangible items'' authority and the ``relevance'' standard are overly broad and subject to potential abuse. These definitions need to be narrowed. Also problematic is the fact that recipients of Section 215 orders are required to wait a year before challenging a nondisclosure order. Additionally, I oppose the provision that allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose judicial challenges to a Section 215 order. Finally, when Congress reauthorized this section in 2005, it made permanent the authorization for the use of National Security Letters (NSLs), which are surveillance tools used to obtain certain types of communications and financial records. I opposed this measure, and have advocated for amendments that would reintroduce sunsets (i.e. established dates upon which these authorities expire so we can hold agencies accountable) for NSLs and require Inspector General audits on the use of NSLs and other ``tangible item'' orders. The use of these orders should also be publically reported to increase transparency and oversight. I am interested in reforming Section 215 and its legislative language in a manner that addresses all of these issues, creating a workable solution that can serve as a foundation for our national security efforts while upholding the 4th Amendment protections in the Constitution for this and future administrations. Unfortunately, the Amash amendment did not address any of these important issues. Rather, it focused on a narrow issue that has been the subject of much misinformation. I worry that this piecemeal approach to amending this law could both hamper our national security efforts in the near-term while creating inconsistent policies in the long-term because of laws enacted at different periods of time on different legislative vehicles (such as an appropriations bill). I am also concerned about unintended consequences; for example, under the Amash amendment, the FBI would have been unable to obtain an individual order for records from an associate of someone under investigation for terrorism activities. This is an example of the policy implications that can arise when complex issues are addressed in a hasty, non-deliberative process. My biggest concern since the disclosure of particular aspects of these programs by Edward Snowden has been with respect to the standards in place that control how and when the government can request access to the content of Americans' communications. I asked pointed questions on this issue at recent intelligence briefings on these programs and I am confident that any access to the content of communications within a program authorized under Section 215 does require an individualized warrant from a judge. These warrants are not issued unless the government has shown probable cause that the identified individual is an agent of a foreign power or a potential terrorist. I will continue my efforts to improve Section 215 (along with the other problematic sections of the PATRIOT Act and FISA). We must introduce more accountability, transparency, and checks and balances into these laws. That is why I am a co-sponsor of the Ending Secret Law Act (H.R. 2475) and the Presidential Appointment of FISA Court Judges Act (H.R. 2671). These bills would make important reforms to the FISA Court by shining a light on the secretive rulings it issues that significantly construct or interpret the law, along with ensuring that the judges who sit on that court are appointed by the President and subject to a public confirmation process in the Senate (currently, they are only chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). There should be no institution in our country with the power to create secret laws. Finally, I am pleased that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board finally has a confirmed Chairman (David Medine) and has announced plans to release a report on the legality of the NSA FISA programs and their impact on civil liberties. We pushed for the creation of this Board to serve as a crucial check to the government's authority with respect to these activities. I had been discouraged by the lack of operational progress of this Board since its establishment by Congress in 2004, and it is my hope that this Board will now begin to more forcefully exercise its oversight role (through its access to classified documents and FISA Court opinions). As a Member of Congress who opposed the reauthorization of Section 215 of the so-called PATRIOT Act, I will continue to press for comprehensive changes to this and other provisions. However, we must do so in a way that addresses the real problems with these programs, and in a manner that doesn't have unintended consequences that could unnecessarily compromise our abilities to prevent terrorist attacks on Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, our country has 676 existing coal ash impoundments in 46 States, and an unknown number of ``legacy sites'' that continue to pose risk to our communities--risk of contaminating the groundwater with arsenic, lead, and mercury or of experiencing catastrophic failure like we saw in the 2008 Kingston disaster. That is why action must be taken to ensure that coal ash is either recycled responsibly or disposed of properly. However, instead of taking steps to protect the public health and prevent groundwater contamination around storage sites, today's legislation authorizes each State to create its own coal waste management permitting program, with no legal standard to ensure a minimum level of public safety. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found that the bill would give EPA ``no federal backstop authority'' to ensure that States enforce their standards. Mr. Chair, rather than addressing the real danger of improperly managed coal ash, this bill risks a regulatory race to the bottom, threatening the safety of all of our citizens. I urge a no vote. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chair, in December 2008 an impoundment holding disposed ash waste generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, TN. The spill covered the surrounding land and Clinch River with one billion gallons of coal ash, displaced residents, and resulted in $1.2 billion in cleanup costs. The accident underscored the need for rules to ensure structural stability and safety of coal ash impoundments given that U.S. electric utilities generate 130 million tons of coal ash every year. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first- ever regulations to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants under the Nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA. In June 2010, the EPA presented two regulatory options: regulating coal ash as hazardous waste under Subtitle C or regulating coal ash as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D. The EPA has not established a deadline for the final rule. I have serious concerns that designating coal ash as a hazardous material, the result of regulating coal ash under Subtitle C, could have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of coal ash to manufacture wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially concrete. In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of coal ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement, coal ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and economy of concrete. It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--an industrial byproduct--in concrete results in longer lasting structures and reduction in the amount of waste materials sent to landfills, raw materials extracted, energy required for production, and air emissions, including carbon dioxide. A ``hazardous'' designation of coal ash could put these benefits in jeopardy. It could make coal ash storage and transportation more expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement manufacturers from recycling coal ash in cement production. The result would not only be devastating for the cement manufacturing industry and American jobs, it could also divert millions of tons of coal ash from beneficial uses to surface impoundments like the one that broke open in Kingston, Tennessee. For these reasons, my preference is for EPA to regulate coal ash under Subtitle D of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. This would ensure we have strong regulations for surface impoundments of coal ash needed to protect public health and the environment without inhibiting the recycling and reuse of coal ash. To ensure EPA gets that message, I supported H.R. 2273 in 2011. The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act was not a perfect bill. In fact, this bill could have been much simpler and likely noncontroversial if my Republican colleagues had just legislated Subtitle D of RCRA. It was my hope that the U.S. Senate would take this more targeted approach. Thankfully, in June of 2013, the EPA published a Federal Register notice indicating a preference for regulating coal ash under subtitle D. I appreciate EPA's willingness to be pragmatic and balance the needs of recyclers to achieve greater environmental protection. Today we are voting on H.R. 2218, the latest version of the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. While the bill has been marginally improved, I believe it is no longer necessary. Assuming the EPA regulates coal ash under Subtitle D, the recycling and reuse of coal ash will not be jeopardized, eliminating the need for legislation. By voting against H.R. 2218, I am thanking EPA for its pragmatic reconsideration of the June 2010 draft rule and for providing certainty for coal ash recyclers.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, the Mulvaney, Van Hollen, Coffman, Murphy amendment matches the President's budget for Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, and also provides an additional $1.5 billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment Modernization. The amendment expressly protects all the funding increases made in the OCO account by the Appropriations Committee for the National Guard and provides sufficient funding to fully accommodate the President's OCO request for National Guard military personnel, operation and maintenance (including depot maintenance), and counter drug activities.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. McGovern and Mr. Welch regarding the importance of this body's having a debate and a vote on whether or not we should be sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to engage and support the rebels in the civil war in Syria. After all, this budget supports the Defense Department, and it also supports the intelligence agency. So this is the time and place to have the debate about taxpayer dollars going to a civil war in Syria. It is also the time and high time that we get on with passing a Federal budget. We've heard a lot of talk on the floor today about the importance of supporting our military--absolutely true--but this legislation does nothing to turn off the sequester. So, unless the Congress comes together on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis to resolve the budget, this Defense appropriations bill is going to be cut by about $48 billion, just as the non-defense parts of the budget will be cut as a result of sequestration. I don't think the American people recognize that as of today--even though we're working on these spending bills--that the United States Congress has not passed a budget. There is no Federal budget in place today. Now, we've heard a lot from our Republican colleagues over the last couple of years about how the Senate was derelict in its duty for not having a budget. Guess what? The Senate passed a budget. It passed a budget 122 days ago. Ever since that time, we've said to our Republican colleagues, Let's take the next step in the process--let's have a conference. Senate, House, let's get together to work out those differences. In fact, Senator Murray, who is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has asked now 17 times for unanimous consent in the Senate to begin negotiations. We have called upon the Speaker of the House to appoint conferees to negotiate on the budget. He has refused. This motion is very simple. I'm just going to read the Resolved clause: It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Speaker should follow regular House procedure and immediately request a conference and appoint conferees to negotiate the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. Very simple. It's calling for exactly what our Republican colleagues have called for for the last 3 years. We've heard from you many times ``no budget, no pay.'' We don't have a budget, but Members of Congress are getting paid. Now, Senator McCain and a lot of Republican Senators have made the point that it's insane not to go to conference on the budget. Here is what he said, Senator McCain: I think it's insane for Republicans who complain for 4 years about Harry Reid not having a budget, and now we're not going to agree to conferees? That is beyond comprehension for me. That sentiment was seconded by lots of other Republican Senators. In fact, I think my colleagues know that I've heard, quietly, from a lot of our House Republican colleagues, saying, frankly, that they're embarrassed at the fact that the House Republicans have refused to appoint conferees and take the next step in the budget process. Why is it important? We've got to get our economy moving in full gear. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that, as a result of the sequester, we're going to have 700,000 fewer jobs in this country by the end of this calendar year and that it's going to reduce our economic growth by one-third. The budget conference is where we work out our differences and try and remove the uncertainty in the economy. By not going to budget conference, let's be clear what our Republican colleagues are doing. They want to take us right up to the cliff of a government shutdown in the beginning of October, the next fiscal year. They are talking about, once again, rolling the dice and playing a game of chicken as to whether or not the United States pays its bills on time. That is no way for the Federal Government to conduct itself. I would ask my colleagues to put aside all of the gamesmanship and to simply, today, appoint conferees so that we can begin to work out these issues on the budget. Right now, as we head into the next school year, the kids of our soldiers who are at Fort Bragg are going to miss 5 days of school this fall because their teachers are going to be sequestered. Because of the sequester, they are going to be furloughed for 5 days this fall. These are the kids of men and women who are fighting to defend this country. That is wrong. Let's get on with replacing the sequester in a smart way, but we can't do that unless we get on with the budget conference. So I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can go to conference.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Look, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman notes, we're in a new Congress right now. In the new Congress, the law requires that we pass a Federal budget by April 15. We are obviously way overdue. It is indisputable that the Senate has passed a budget. Why not go to conference?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina, and our colleagues for offering this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, just last month, Secretary of Defense Hagel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before this House as to the amount of money that would be necessary to support the war in Afghanistan and our overseas operation, the so-called OCO account. What they told this Congress was that the President's request of $80 billion was the amount necessary to accomplish our objectives and to support our troops. Yet this defense spending bill that is before us adds another $5 billion that was unasked for and unnecessary. So if there are extra moneys stuffed into this account, why are they put in this account as opposed to somewhere else? The answer is that it's a very clever accounting scheme because the other account, the base budget for defense spending, is subject to a cap, but moneys for the war account are not. So every dollar you somehow put into the war account is a dollar that escapes the cap. You can put lots of dollars into that war funding account, even though they have nothing to do with supporting overseas operations. I give the committee an A for creative accounting and an F for truth in budgeting. What this amendment does is it says to the military we're going to provide you the funds you asked for, but, as the gentleman from South Carolina said, we're actually going to add $1.5 billion additional for the Guard and the Reserve. There's no reason we should be throwing money into the war accounts that don't belong there simply as an accounting scheme to avoid the cap.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation on the Floor today, a missed opportunity to reform our education system and ensure that every student has access to a high quality education. We should be working in a bipartisan manner to correct the widely- acknowledged flaws of No Child Left Behind and make the law more fair, flexible, and responsive to the needs of students. Instead, the bill before us shortchanges our schools and eliminates supports for our most vulnerable populations. We should be providing the resources our schools need to fix the achievement gap and put a good, supported teacher in every classroom. Instead, today's bill locks in post-sequestration funding levels for K- 12 education and cuts back on professional development. We should be setting high expectations for our schools and giving States flexibility to create accountability systems that improve achievement for every student. Instead, this legislation eliminates requirements for districts to fix struggling schools and ensure that all students make it to graduation. We should be providing additional support for students with additional challenges--students with disabilities, English-language learners, and at-risk youth. Instead, we have a bill that allows funds to be directed away from these students and allows all students with disabilities to be taught at a lower standard. We should be encouraging innovation in the classroom, empowering teachers and allowing charter schools to test new ideas. But while this bill would expand charter school availability, it does not require those schools to be accountable or transparent with taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chair there are many missed opportunities in this bill. It continues the exclusive focus on math and reading, with no support for STEM, geography, history, the arts, or other subjects that provide a well-rounded education. It eliminates funding for afterschool programs and wraparound services that ensure students are prepared to learn. Our students, teachers, and parents deserve better than this bill. We should come together in a bipartisan fashion, as we have always done with education in the past, to develop real reform that gives our students the skills they need to succeed in our 21st century global economy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, in April, the International Energy Agency concluded that despite some progress in deploying clean energy, that the average unit of energy produced in the world today is essentially polluting as it was 20 years ago. As President Obama stated at Georgetown University last month, we cannot afford to slow-walk our transition to a lower carbon future. Climate change and its consequences are not waiting and neither can we. The good news is the transition to a cleaner global economy presents a great economic opportunity for the United States. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that private clean energy investment will more than triple by 2030. We should be fighting to attract that investment here in the United States, but we are at risk of missing out on that opportunity. China and other countries have made firm national commitments to generate more electricity from clean energy sources, and that reality is reflected in their current levels of investment--a $65 billion investment in China compared to $35 billion in the United States. Madam Speaker, we should not lose this competition, we should not jeopardize our future, and we should not jeopardize the climate. This is an opportunity for a win-win.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which is a poster child for why this House needs to get serious about replacing the sequester with a balanced, long-term budget agreement that keeps faith with our values and funds critical to national priorities. According to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance for the Pew Charitable Trusts, China overtook the United States in the 21st century's clean energy race last year, attracting $65.1 billion in clean energy investment compared to just $35.6 billion in the U.S. Rather than responding aggressively to this challenge, today's legislation effectively proposes to throw in the towel and slashes clean energy funding by 60 percent. As a result, America's families and businesses will be forced to pay more than they otherwise would on their utility bills as fewer homes are weatherized, deployment of cost- effective clean energy technologies is delayed and smart grid modernization is postponed. The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or ARPA-E, faces an even more devastating 81 percent cut. This early stage, high-impact program created by the bipartisan America Competes Act has already leveraged more than $450 million in private sector investment from $70 million in funding to game-changing opportunities in areas like energy storage, advanced biofuels and smart grid technology. ARPA-E--and the transformational breakthroughs it is driving--would be all but shut down under this legislation. From basic research at DoE's Office of Science to environmental cleanup at our nation's nuclear defense sites to tackling the current $60 billion backlog at the Army Corps of Engineers, this legislation shrinks from America's challenges and shortchanges America's future. We can and should do better.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Floyd Sears of Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Floyd passed away on June 5, 2013 at the age of 82. Floyd Sears was a national leader of grassroots military retirees who achieved remarkable legislative success in righting what they knew was a wrong. He represented the best of the military retirees whom we all represent. I am grateful to Floyd Sears, a great American citizen in the truest sense, who joined the military in his youth when duty called and devoted his career to defending our freedoms, and then, in his retirement, exercised those freedoms to help make our country a better place. Health care for our military community is a priority for me as it was for Floyd, and it is a privilege to represent the district that is home to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Walter Reed is the crown jewel of military medicine, serving our country's active and retired military and especially the wounded who have suffered greatly in the most difficult circumstances. Congress has provided the resources that were necessary to ensure that the new Walter Reed can provide world-class health care to our uniformed service personnel. However, Floyd's generation did not always receive that level of attention. Floyd became a leader in the effort to restore retiree health care benefits that his generation of enlistees was losing. These individuals had been promised health care upon their retirement when they enlisted in the military services in their youth. But those benefits were pulled out from under them when they retired after a career of at least 20 years due to unintended consequences of legislative and administrative changes in military health care. Floyd recognized how these legal changes were stripping him and his colleagues of the retiree health care benefits that they earned and richly deserved. Nearly 20 years ago, he began his personal crusade to amend the law and restore those promised benefits. What began as one man sending letters to his local newspaper and representative in Congress became a nationwide grassroots effort connected by the Internet. Ultimately, Floyd, his good friend Jim Whittington and others, on behalf of their grassroots army, inspired the introduction of the ``Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act,'' which led to the enactment of Tricare for Life, a great leap towards fulfilling Floyd's dream of full restoration of the benefits he had been promised. Floyd never intended to draw attention to himself. But with his passing we can admire what one person can accomplish when he puts his mind, his heart, and his energy into it. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for the extraordinary contributions that Floyd Sears, a truly great American, made to our nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Ambassador George W. Landau for his 50 years of service to our Nation and to congratulate him for receiving the American Foreign Service Association 2013 Lifetime Contributions to American Diplomacy Award. This award is bestowed in recognition of extraordinary contribution to diplomacy and to recognize the recipient's continued contribution in retirement to the advancement of the profession of diplomacy and U.S. foreign policy. Ambassador George Landau served as U.S Ambassador to Paraguay, Venezuela, and Chile, where he played a crucial role in solving the murder of Chilean politician Orlando Letelier, who died in a car bombing in Washington, DC in 1976. By preserving evidence which led to the identification of the organizers of the bombing, Ambassador Landau helped to expose a large, concerted effort to kill South American rebels and dissidents. His efforts helped to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes. Following his retirement, he served as the President of the Americas Society and Council of the Americas, and as President of the Council of Advisors, Latin America, of Guardian Industries (AS/COA). During his tenure as president of AS/COA, Ambassador Landau worked tirelessly to persuade Congress to grant ``fast track'' negotiating authority to the president in support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. His efforts helped to lay the foundation for the U.S.-Chile Free Trade agreement of 2004 and the current Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. As an acknowledgment of his service and key role in the promotion of trade, Ambassador Landau was twice appointed to the board of the Export-Import Bank and received decorations from the governments of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela. Ambassador George W. Landau personifies the ideals and values that are the basis of the U.S. Foreign Service. On behalf of a grateful nation I thank him for his long service to our country and congratulate him on his award.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, while I support the responsible development of our nation's resources, this week's legislation prioritizes drilling over protecting investors, improving rig safety, respecting coastal communities and conducting appropriate environmental review. For these reasons, I will be voting no and encouraging my colleagues do the same. The Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act (HR 1613) provides specific authorization for the recently negotiated U.S.-Mexico transboundary agreement and establishes standards for all future offshore oil and gas agreements with potential foreign partners like Canada, Russia, the Bahamas and Bermuda. If HR 1613 were a clean bill, it would be completely non-controversial. Instead, HR 1613 also proposes to waive a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring disclosure of otherwise secret payments made to foreign governments in connection with oil and gas development. Repealing this right-to-know protection is harmful to investors and has no place in this otherwise non-controversial legislation. The so-called Offshore Energy and Jobs Act (HR 2231) would seek to open huge swaths of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling-- including waters off my home state of Maryland--as well as a number of sensitive areas in Alaska. It would do this without implementing any key safety reforms recommended by the bipartisan BP Oil Spill Commission and without proper envitonmental review. Furthermore, it would do so at a time when domestic oil production is at a 20 year high, domestic gas production is at an all time high, and the oil and gas industry is already sitting on 30 million acres of offshore leases containing an estimated 17.9 billion barrels of oil and 49.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas it is not yet producing. Rather than focusing on a real ``all of the above'' strategy that strengthens our energy security through diversifying our energy mix with more clean, homegrown renewables, HR 2231 reverts to the same reckless ``drill, baby, drill'' approach to energy policy that has already been summarily rejected by the Senate and is certain to be rejected again.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize the accomplishments of my constituent, Brenda Battat, and her 24 years of dedicated service to the Hearing Loss Association of America, HLAA. Through her tenure at HLAA, which she has served as Executive Director since 2008, Ms. Battat was instrumental in making HLAA the nation's leading consumer organization for people with hearing loss. Among her many accomplishments, Ms. Battat made significant contributions to raising public awareness on hearing loss and advocating for greater accessibility in public and private venues. At the HLAA, Ms. Battat worked to ensure that Americans with hearing loss have more and better health care and technology options. She led advocacy efforts to increase consumer choice in the hearing loss marketplace. She assisted people with hearing loss in obtaining more options for communication and entertainment, such as hearing aid- compatible telephones and increased captioning of internet and mobile television programming. By fighting to make hearing aids and hearing technology more affordable and promoting the use of hearing assistive technology with consumer train-the-trainer programs, Ms. Battat has achieved easier and more effective communication for the hard of hearing. Ms. Battat's promotion of hearing assistive technology has removed barriers for those with hearing loss to participate fully in both private and community life. Ms. Battat, who herself has a profound hearing loss and uses a cochlear implant and hearing aid, has served on many state and national advisory boards, including the National Institute on Deafness & Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council, the National Association of Hearing and Speech Action, the National Center for Deaf Health Research External Committee, the Maryland Telecommunications Relay Advisory Committee, the Federal Communications Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, and Consumer/Disability Telecommunications Advisory Committee. In short, her efforts have benefitted countless people. Ms. Battat's outstanding work has earned her well-deserved national recognition. She received the Sheldon Williams Itzkoff Leadership Award in 2010, the Robert H. Weitbrecht Telecommunications Access Award in 2007, the Oticon Focus on People Advocacy Award in 2005, and the Self Help for Hard of Hearing People National Access Award in 2002. Under her leadership, the HLAA maintained financial stability and earned the GuideStar Exchange Seal for transparency. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent Brenda Battat in the U.S. House of Representatives and to thank her for her outstanding accomplishments on behalf of those with hearing loss. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Battat on her contributions and in wishing her an enjoyable and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1947, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act. While Congress must pass a long-term policy for American consumers, farmers, and ranchers, this bill is simply unacceptable. Unlike the measure passed by our colleagues in the Senate, the House GOP's bill makes deep, reckless cuts to programs for low-income families and children. This bill reduces by $20 billion the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which will end food aid for nearly 2 million people, and kick 210,000 children off of free school lunch and breakfast. We need a farm bill that is fiscally responsible, provides small farmers and ranchers with tools to manage risk, and creates opportunities for conservation in areas like the Chesapeake Bay. There is agreement that we need to eliminate direct payments that are made regardless of yields, prices, farm income, or size. Unfortunately, until the House GOP bring a reasonable measure to the floor, the federal government will continue to give taxpayer dollars to big agribusinesses whether they need them or not. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and look forward to working with them on a responsible, long-term reauthorization of our nation's agriculture policy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The NDAA offers Congress an opportunity to provide the resources we need for our Armed Forces and a chance to address some of the significant challenges that must be confronted--like the mechanisms for confronting cases of sexual abuse in the military. While I appreciate the House Armed Services Committee's continued support of our servicemembers and our national defense, this bill contains a number of serious flaws. These include providing over $5 billion in OCO funding that the Pentagon did not request, imposing funding restrictions that would prohibit the construction or modification of a detention facility in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, and establishing an unnecessary missile defense site on the East Coast. I was particularly disappointed that a bipartisan amendment I introduced--which would have ensured that the FY2014 funding for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas contingences is at the level the DoD and military leaders say is necessary for the mission--was not adopted. The funding level in the National Defense Authorization bill for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for Fiscal Year 2014 is set at $85.8--$5 billion more than the $80.7 billion the Defense Department says is necessary to achieve the mission. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey both testified before the House Budget Committee that the FY2014 OCO level of $80.7 billion requested in the President's budget was sufficient to meet our military's needs. At a time of fiscal constraint, we simply cannot afford to provide more funding than our military leaders say is needed. Part of the reason some may have hesitated to support the amendment was due to claims that it would have eliminated funding for National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment modernization. But, that was simply not true. As we continue to search for a way to turn off the sequester by replacing it with a more rational deficit reduction package, we shouldn't allow the OCO designation to be used as a loophole to get around spending caps that are written in law as the defense authorization bill did. That is not a solution to the sequester. Instead, we should find a balanced deficit reduction plan to replace sequestration so that we can provide adequate funding to maintain a military that is second to none and make the investments in education, scientific research, and infrastructure necessary to keep our economy strong, which is the foundation of our security. Unfortunately, the House Republican budget takes the opposite approach. It cuts even more deeply into vital investments in our kids' education and in the investments in innovation and technology that help grow our economy. It cuts the part of the budget that funds education and vital medical research by 19 percent below the sequester. And despite claims to want to strengthen our embassy security in the aftermath of tragedies like Behnghazi, it slashes State Department operations by over 15 percent. Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased to see that this bill incorporated initiatives that begin to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. Unfortunately, the measures adopted were inadequate to meet the challenge. I was especially disappointed that Congresswoman Jackie Speier was denied the opportunity to offer an important amendment to strengthen accountability and improve the process. I also share many of the other concerns that were outlined in the President's Statement of Administration Policy. This includes a misguided provision in the bill which would continue funding restrictions that prohibit the construction or modification of a detention facility in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, and would constrain DoD's ability to transfer Guantanamo detainees, including those who have already been designated for transfer to other countries. In addition, I strongly object to a requirement in this bill which would limit the President's ability to implement the New START Treaty and to set the country's nuclear policy. I am also opposed to sections 232 and 233 in this bill, which authorize the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. These provisions disregard the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and seek to tie the President's hands in determining military requirements in other parts of the world. Finally, this bill contains provisions which ignore DoD recommendations and block the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options are readily available. This year's NDAA does authorize much needed funding for vital programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, their civilian colleagues, and our veterans. It is my hope that many of my objections to this legislation 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. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1797. This bill, which would implement a nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks, is in direct violation of Roe v. Wade. H.R. 1797 is the latest attempt by House Republicans to undermine a woman's fundamental right to choose. H.R. 1797 does not provide an exception to protect a woman's health. This dangerous omission would deny a woman the right to an abortion even when her doctor determines it would be necessary to protect her health. This infringement into the relationship between a woman and her doctor is the reason this legislation is opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Women's Association. Additionally, H.R. 1797 contains a wholly inadequate exception for rape and incest. The threshold that the crime must have been reported to the authorities is arbitrary and cynical considering that it is estimated over half of the rapes in the United States go unreported. I urge my colleagues to oppose this attack on a woman's Constitutional right to choose.