Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1911, the wrong approach to a very real problem for our nation's students. As we all know, the interest rate on student loans will double in July if Congress does not act. But today's legislation is not the solution. In fact, today's bill will make student loans more expensive, not less. Student loan debt already tops $1.1 trillion, burdening recent graduates with high monthly payments even as they struggle to find jobs and start their lives. With that much debt at the start of their careers, they may put off purchases like a home or a car. But rather than address that problem, today's bill would add $3.7 billion in additional loan interest charges over the next ten years. In fact, if we did nothing and allowed the student loan interest rate to double, students would be better off than they would be under H.R. 1911. Today's bill also makes it difficult for students to accurately predict their college costs. Under this proposal, the interest rate on loans would be recalculated every year for the life of the loan. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, interest rates will be higher than current rates for seven of the next ten years. A borrower who takes out a loan next year under the Republican plan would see his interest rate more than double by the time he starts repaying that loan in 2017. Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive solution to the problem of student debt that includes affordable financial assistance and works with states and colleges to keep costs down. It is time to reauthorize the Higher Education Act--let's take this opportunity to negotiate a sustainable, long-term plan that works better for students.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to extend my heartiest congratulations to the Literacy Council of Montgomery County, Maryland (``LCMC'') on its 50th anniversary. In 1963, Elizabeth Kilgore, a county resident who recognized serious literacy deficiencies in her community, began working with community leaders, educators, clergy, and other concerned residents to develop an organizational plan and charter to create the LCMC. Utilizing only volunteers, and because 96% of Montgomery County residents spoke English as their first language, LCMC initially focused on improving the literacy skills of native-born citizens. In 1967, LCMC offered its first English as a Second Language (ESL) tutoring program to serve the growing immigrant population in Montgomery County. Fifty years later, LCMC, based in Rockville, Maryland, has developed into an organization of more than 800 volunteers, teachers and staff. Now with 12 full- and part-time staff members, LCMC's programs include intensive classroom-based instruction taught by professional instructors, conversation classes, independent computer-based instruction, short-term ``life-skills'' classes, an online GED preparation program, and a workplace literacy program. In its 50 years of service, LCMC has provided literacy instruction to approximately 15,000 adult learners and has trained nearly 8,700 volunteer tutors. Its programs currently serve 1,500 adults each year. In Montgomery County, where approximately 40% of the current population speaks a language other than English at home, the success of this program is critical. Nearly 15% of Montgomery County residents over age 5 speak English less than ``very well.'' Twelve percent of children in Montgomery County public schools are enrolled in ESOL classes and are likely to have parents with limited English proficiency. LCMC also serves native-born adults who are able to speak English, but are unable to read and/or write. Thanks to LCMC's outstanding work, many members of our community have been able to overcome the challenges posed by illiteracy, allowing them to participate more fully in the community and to improve their quality of life. In short, LCMC has transformed the lives of thousands of adults and families. I am proud that LCMC is located in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating LCMC on its extraordinary accomplishments and extend to it all good wishes for continued success.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which is a transparent attempt to skirt federal law so that the majority can impose its own preferred outcome on the State Department's ongoing regulatory review of the Keystone XL pipeline. Although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make much of their professed commitment to regular order and distaste for earmarks, recent developments--including today's legislation--make clear that commitment is only as deep as it is convenient. Regular order? We are now 37 days past due on delivering an FY 2014 Budget, and the majority still refuses to go to conference. Earmarks? This legislation--which carves out numerous special exceptions for a single pipeline project benefitting one company--is clearly an earmark. Mr. Chair, the decision as to whether to build the northern route of the Keystone XL pipeline should be made based on a complete and thorough evaluation of its impacts on our climate, energy security, water supply, job creation, air quality, balance of trade, human health and other relevant factors--not some hastily thrown together, ill- considered and politically driven exercise. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, she has. She has said, Mr. Speaker, that she wants to go to conference right away, and that's why we're waiting for the Speaker in this House to go to conference.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't understand. You want them to work out a budget behind closed doors?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. There has been a lot of talk on the floor this morning about the sequester and the negative impact it's having on the economy. I would remind my colleagues, as my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) did, that on four occasions the House Democrats have tried to bring to this floor for a vote a bill that would replace the sequester, end the disruption, and end the job loss that the Congressional Budget Office says is coming with the sequester. This morning we're going to ask this House to take a simple vote on another resolution, and I'm going to read it because it's really simple. It says: Resolved, that 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 a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution agreement with the United States Senate. Now, we all stood on this floor and heard our Republican colleagues criticize the United States Senate for 3 years because they did not have a budget. Well, guess what? The United States Senate passed a budget more than 53 days ago. But now what's happened is the Speaker of this House has refused to go to conference to negotiate a final budget. We heard for weeks and weeks the mantra, ``No budget, no pay.'' Apparently, that was a meaningless cry because as of right now there is no Federal budget and Members of the House and the Senate are still getting paid. Did you mean it or did you not mean it? We heard complaints about how the President's budget was late this year. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We are now way overdue in getting a resolution out of conference committee. If you look at the statute, the law, on the budget, it says the House and Senate are supposed to have completed conference action by April 15. We are way overdue. And the only reason we are overdue is because this House and the Speaker of this House refuses to appoint conferees. The Senate Democrats on eight occasions, Mr. Speaker, have asked for unanimous consent in the Senate to go to conference, and they have been blocked over there. It is getting to be a little embarrassing to some of the Republican Senators. I just want to show you a quote from Senator McCain just the other day: ``I think it's insane for Republicans, who complained 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.'' And guess what, Mr. Speaker? This is getting beyond comprehension to the American people, saying one thing and doing another. Here's some other Republican Senators: Senator Boozman: ``I think we need to go to conference.'' Senator Wicker: ``I would say by the end of next week''--that's this coming week--``we probably should be ready to go to conference.'' Senator Coburn: ``I'm okay with going right now.'' And on and on. You would think our House Republican colleagues would begin to feel a little sense of that embarrassment as well, given the fact that they called for years to get a budget done and now are standing in the way of getting that exact budget done. In fact, the Speaker of this House on multiple occasions has said we should go to conference on the budget, that that's how we resolve things in the regular order. Here's what the Speaker said on ``Meet the Press'' back in March when we were all putting together our budgets, the Senate was putting together a budget and the House was putting together a budget: ``It's time for us to get back to regular order here in Congress. When the House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill; and if we disagree, we go to conference to resolve those differences.'' The Speaker said this on multiple occasions. I just want to read again from the resolution I'm asking this House to vote on this morning. It says simply: Resolved, that it is the sense of the House that the Speaker should follow regular House procedure and appoint the conferees that he told the country on national television he would do in order to make sure that we get on with the fundamental business of this country and pass a Federal budget. Not just a House budget, not just a Senate budget. Those things are meaningless by themselves. You've got to get a Federal budget. It turns out that this ``no budget, no pay'' thing was really just a kind of ``wink-wink'' knowing, hey, the House can pass a budget, the Senate can pass a budget, but it doesn't actually get the job done. Mr. Speaker, I just ask, let us have a vote to appoint conferees to get on with the Nation's business.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You mentioned Chairman Ryan and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Patty Murray. Senator Murray was one of the people just the other day on the Senate floor asking for unanimous consent to go to conference, because she and Chairman Ryan are not in the process of trying to negotiate behind closed doors. We need to do this in the light of day. And she has asked, along with Senator Reid, now eight times to go to conference. So why delay going to conference?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield, because we don't have a budget right now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend. I thank my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee as well. But the gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, said the process worked, that ``no budget, no pay'' worked. I would remind the gentleman, we don't have a budget as of right now. And, in fact, we are now out of compliance with our own law, which says that the conference committee should report the budget by April 15. I think we can check our calendars. We know it's way overdue. And the only thing that's stopping us from going to conference right now is the Speaker has refused to move forward on this. As I indicated, eight times in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader and Patty Murray, Senator Murray, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, have asked for unanimous consent to go to conference. So we could get on with this right now, as Mr. McGovern suggested, if our Republican colleagues would allow us to offer a motion to go to conference by unanimous consent.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, as someone who believes the federal government has a responsibility to set and enforce clear and transparent rules of the road for our markets to operate fairly, efficiently and effectively, I believe conducting cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations is both appropriate and necessary. Moreover, I think rules and regulations should be periodically reviewed--and eliminated or modified where needed--to ensure our markets are functioning optimally. If that's what this legislation was about, it would have my support. It's not--which is why I will be opposing H.R. 1062 today. Although you wouldn't know it from listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Securities and Exchange Commission already performs--and is already required to perform--extensive economic analysis regarding the regulations it promulgates, including rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, in addition to protecting investors, SEC rulemakings are also already required to ``promote efficiency, competition and capital formation.'' Indeed, entities ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the Government Accountability Office have all recently validated the SEC's current staff guidance in this regard. Unfortunately, rather than promoting clear and transparent rules of the road, arrived at through rigorous cost-benefit analysis, today's legislation is very plainly an effort to do the opposite--to block even the most carefully considered regulation by creating a ``paralysis of analysis'' at the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to undermine the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law. Mr. Chair, it was the absence of clear and transparent rules of the road that precipitated the Great Recession, and now that the economy has finally begun to heal, we are simply not going back to the conditions that created the crisis in the first place. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 37th time is a waste of resources and another example of the refusal to focus on the important issues of jobs and the economy right now. It's also an example of bad budgeting. One of the things I don't think our Republican colleagues have focused on is that their claim to have a balanced budget rests on the savings and the tax revenue in the ObamaCare bill. So if you repeal all of ObamaCare, which this bill says it wants to do, the Republican budget will immediately be out of balance in 10 years. Here's how it works: If you look at the Republican budget, in 10 years, they claim that there's a $7 billion surplus. But the reality is it also contains in it Medicare savings--we heard that issue demagogued during the last Presidential campaign--and it also includes ObamaCare revenue. And if you take out that over $400 billion in Medicare savings and the revenue in ObamaCare, poof, the Republican budget is way out of balance. And, Mr. Speaker, it's not just me saying that. Here's what The Heritage Foundation said. They also point out that the Republican budget depends on ObamaCare. So, long story short, you can't have it both ways. You can't repeal ObamaCare and go home and tell people you did that and, at the same time, say you have a balanced budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Michigan. I strongly oppose this bill which, as our colleagues have said, says we should pay the government of China before we pay our troops, before we pay our veterans, and before we pay other bills here in the United States. Of all the bad ideas that have come to the floor of this House, this one is one of the worst. It's a reckless, irresponsible proposal that says the United States of America is not going to pay all the bills that are due and owing. That will have a terrible impact on our creditworthiness, it will undermine the full faith and credit of the United States, and it would wreak havoc in the economy. Look, Madam Speaker, our constituents don't have the luxury of waking up one morning and saying: Do you know what? I'm only going to make my mortgage payment. I'm not going to make my car payment, and I'm not going to make my credit card payments. If they did that, what would happen? They would lose their creditworthiness. For the United States of America to say we're going to pay some bills but not all would have hugely damaging impacts on the economy. And it gets worse, because when they say, We've got to pay some, but not all, you've got to decide whom you're going to pay first. And what they decide here is they're going to pay China first, and they have to decide who is not a priority. In this bill, our veterans are not a priority, and our troops risking their lives in Afghanistan are not a priority. China is a priority; they're not. Now, Madam Speaker, what will happen here is that people will lose faith in whether or not the country pays its bills. People need to understand very clearly that this is not about expanding the debt ceiling in order to take on new obligations. This is about paying our existing obligations. And if we announce to the world that we're planning on not paying our obligations, whether they're to bondholders or to our troops, guess what happens? People will lose faith in the United States Government, and the economy will get hit hard. Let's vote against this bill that says China comes before our troops and our veterans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 588, the Vietnam Veterans Donor Acknowledgment Act of 2013. This legislation will permit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to display and recognize donor contributions at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center. Other memorials located on the National Mall, including the MLK Memorial and FDR Memorial, include engraved walls of donors. By allowing recognition of major donors at the Visitor Center, this will allow the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund to reach its goal of raising $95 million in private funds to complete construction of the Education Center at the Wall. It is in our national interest to make sure there is a place to properly honor the fallen and pay the proper respects to all Americans who so proudly display the values of honor, service and duty by wearing our country's uniform. The Education Center at The Wall will be just that place. Passing this legislation will help fulfill our responsibility to ensure that future generations understand the tremendous sacrifices made by those who have answered the nation's call to duty for more than 200 years, as well as the living legacy of service carried forward by today's military.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, after the vote on this today, Members of this House are going to run for the airports. They're all going to be flying home on airplanes. And, yes, they will make it easier for Members of Congress to get through those lines, and they'll pat themselves on the back and say, ``Job well done.'' Well, obviously we should address the issue at the airports, but we need to address the other issues right now and not make it easier for Members of Congress to fly home for a week away when it should be a week right here making sure we do not see the negative impact of the sequester grind on for those kids in Head Start, for the seniors on Meals on Wheels, for folks who are doing important lifesaving research. Look, Mr. Speaker, four times this year we have offered a proposal to replace the entire sequester, to achieve the same deficit reduction without the kind of damage that's been done, and four times we haven't even had a chance to vote on the floor of this House. Now we're simply asking to go to conference. Our Republican colleagues complain that the Senate didn't pass the budget, but they've got one. Let's go to conference rather than go home.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, a bipartisan bill that will prevent a global helium shortage that could limit high-tech manufacturing and critical scientific research. Recognizing the value of our helium resources, the government established a Federal Helium Reserve in the 1960s. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation to privatize the Reserve and sell off its supply. Unfortunately, that sale has been conducted at below-market rates even as demand for helium, which is critical for hospitals, manufacturing, and research, has increased. Moreover, under that 1996 law, the Reserve will have to stop operations this October, cutting our domestic supply by nearly half and causing a worldwide shortage. Today's legislation creates a new, auction-based program for selling helium from the Reserve, preventing the shortage and ensuring that taxpayers get fair value for this resource. It's a common sense solution to a serious problem and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, every day cyber-networks in this country are attacked. These attacks cause substantial disruption to our networks and drain billions of dollars from our economy each year. Today we consider a bill designed to strengthen our protections against cyber threats by encouraging private entities to share information and intelligence among themselves and with the government. I certainly support that goal. However, I cannot support this bill in its current form because I believe it does not sufficiently protect the privacy of Americans. Specifically, the bill does not include sufficient protections against the disclosure of sensitive personal information. Under the bill, companies are not required to extract personal information from the data they collect and share. Sharing un-scrubbed personal information with other companies or with government agencies can potentially put the civil liberties of Americans at risk if the data is misused or handled improperly. The bill also grants companies excessively broad immunities from legal responsibility for the disclosure or misuse of this data. Many of the amendments accepted on the floor this week provide increased protections for information once it is received by the government, but that is no substitute for protecting it when it is initially collected by companies or when they share the data with each other. The White House has threatened to veto this bill if these issues are not adequately addressed. I opposed this bill last year for similar reasons. I welcome the changes made to the bill this year to address some of those concerns. For example, no longer can receiving government agencies use information for national security purposes. Additionally, increased protections for personal data have been added for the information when it is placed in government hands. These changes improve the bill, but they do not go far enough to prevent the unwarranted and unnecessary disclosure of private information. I believe that the cyber threats we face in this country are real, present and destructive. However, I believe that we can address these cyber threats without opening the door to unnecessary disclosure of private information. The companies who collect sensitive data about Americans should be required to safeguard that data to the fullest extent of their ability. The shortcomings of this bill can be easily addressed and I hope the Senate will make these necessary changes. I look forward to supporting a future bill that achieves that goal.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following: In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Citizens United v. FEC that fundamentally overturned American campaign finance laws by treating corporations as ``persons'' under the First Amendment, thus enabling CEOs to make unlimited expenditures from corporate treasuries into political campaigns. An estimated $1 billion of outside money, an unprecedented amount, was spent in the 2012 election. Of this amount, an estimated $400 million was received from anonymous sources as it was channeled through entities that do not have to identify their donors. The impact of this secret special interest money will greatly diminish the integrity of our electoral process. Many legislative solutions have been identified to correct this trend that damages our democracy. One alternative would reverse the decision of the Court through an amendment to the Constitution. Senator Jamie Raskin, from the State of Maryland, has made a significant contribution to the development of Federal legislation that would overturn the Citizens United case. Moreover, Senator Raskin has been a leader in the Maryland State Senate in amassing support from Maryland legislators to call upon the U.S. Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to correct this decision. I would like to commend Senator Raskin for his work to strengthen the integrity of our electoral process. The Maryland General Assembly, Annapolis, MD, January, 2012. To the Honorable Members of the United States Congress: We, the Undersigned Members of the Maryland General Assembly, call upon you to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse the United States Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which declared that corporations enjoy the First Amendment political rights of the people and toppled dozens of state and federal laws and many decades of judicial precedent preventing corporations (and unions) from spending corporate (and union) treasury funds in political campaigns. This radical departure from judicial precedent and democratic values has already brought a torrent of corporate money, much of it secret, into American politics, fundamentally distorting public elections and campaigns for public office. The decision poses a direct and dramatic threat to government ``of the people, by the people and for the people.'' By bringing corporations into the heart of the political process, Citizens United changes the character of democracy. For-profit corporations (except benefit corporations) are legally hound to pursue the maximization of profits and economic advantage in all of their endeavors. This is one reason why most United States Supreme Court Justices, from Chief Justice john Marshall to Chief Justice William Rehnquist. to Justice Byron White to the four dissenting justices in Citizens United v. FEC, have rejected the claim that corporations have political rights. Corporations enjoy special state-conferred economic and legal advantages not enjoyed by natural persons, including limited liability of the shareholders, perpetual life of the corporation itself, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets. These advantages permit corporations to amass vast sums of money that are spent properly for economic purposes but not for the purposes of intervening in democratic politics and entrenching corporate power. Article V of the United States Constitution empowers the people, the states and the Congress to use the constitutional amending process to protect republican self-government. This power has repeatedly been used by the people when the Supreme Court has undermined the progress or popular democracy. As Members of the Maryland General Assembly, we sharply disagree with the majority decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and call upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification as soon as is practicable a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision and restore fair elections and democratic sovereignty to the states and to the people. Very truly yours, Del. Aisha Braveboy; Del. Alfred Carr; Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez; Del. Anne Healey; Del. Anne Kaiser; Del. Ariana Kelly; Del. Aruna Miller; Del. Barbara Frush; Del. Benjamin Kramer; Del. Bonnie Cullison; Del. Brian Feldman; Del. Brian McHale; Del. C.T. Wilson; Del. Cheryl Glenn; Del. Craig Zucker; Del. Curt Anderson; Del. Dan Morhaim; Del. Dana Stein; Del. Doyle Niemann; Del. Elizabeth Bobo. Del. Emmett Burns; Del. Eric Leudtke; Del. Frank Turner; Del. Galen Clagett; Del. Geraldine Valentino-Smith; Del. Guy Guzzone; Del. Hattie Harrison; Del. Heather Mizeur; Del. James Gilchrist; Del. James Hubbard; Del. James Malone; Del. James Proctor; Del. Jay Walker; Del. Jill Carter; Del. Jon Cardin; Del. John Olszewski; Del. John Wood; Del. Jolene Ivey; Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk; Del. Joseph Minnick. Del. Joseph Vallario; Del. Justin Ross; Del. Kathleen Dumais; Del. Keiffer Mitchell; Del. Keith Haynes; Del. Kiri11 Reznick; Del. Kris Valderama; Del. Kumar Barve; Del. Luke Clippinger; Del. Maggie McIntosh; Del. Marvin Holmes; Del. Mary Washington; Del. Melvin Stukes; Del. Michael Summers; Del. Michael Weir; Del. Norman Conway; Del. Pamela Beidle; Del. Peter Hammen; Del. Peter Murphy; Del. Rudolph Cane. Del. Sam Arora; Del. Sandy Rosenberg; Del. Shane Pendergrass; Del. Shane Robinson; Del. Shaw Tarrant; Del. Sheila Hixson; Del. Shirley Nathan-Pulliam; Del. Stephen Lafferty; Del. Steven DeBoy; Del. Susan Lee; Del. Talmedge Branch; Del. Tawanna Gaines; Del. Theodore Sophocleus; Del. Tom Hucker; Del. Veronica Turner; Sen. Bill Ferguson; Sen. Brian Frosh; Sen. Catherine Pugh; Sen. Delores Kelley; Sen. Edward Kasemeyer. Sen. James Brochin; Sen. James Robey; Sen. James Rosapepe; Sen. Jamie Raskin; Sen. Jennie Forehand; Sen. Joan Carter- Conway; Sen. Joanne Benson; Sen. John Astle; Sen. Karen Montgomery; Sen. Katherine Klausmeier; Sen. Lisa Gladden; Sen. Nancy King; Sen. Nathaniel McFadden; Sen. Norman Stone; Sen. Paul Pinsky; Sen. Richard Madaleno; Sen. Robert Garagiola; Sen. Robert Zirkin; Sen. Roger Manno; Sen. Ronald Young; Sen. Thomas Middleton; Sen. Ulysses Currie; Sen. Verna Jones Rodwell; Sen. Victor Ramirez.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 249, the misleadingly named Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. This bill unfairly singles out federal employees for punishment instead of applying a uniform set of rules to individuals who may be delinquent on their taxes. All Americans should pay their taxes, and those who fail to do so should be penalized. But this bill denies public workers the full complement of due process rights that would be available to any other American under the same circumstances. In effect, this bill would require the firing of any public employee even if they are legitimately contesting their delinquency through the established process. There are laws and regulations on the books that address how tax delinquency should be handled and how public employees who are delinquent on their payments should be disciplined. By by-passing those procedures, this measure unfairly targets public employees simply because they work for the government. Public servants work hard every day providing a wide array of public services for Americans, from helping to nurse our wounded veterans, to discovering cures and treatments for diseases that plague millions of American families, to protecting our food supply. The passage of this bill is the latest in a series of unfair congressional attacks on public workers that has ranged from cutting their pay to reducing their benefits. And this bill arrives just as many of them face further pay cuts resulting from agency imposed furloughs. Federal workers do not deserve to be treated like this.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the members and staff of the American Association of Immunologists, AAI, on the occasion of the organization's 100th anniversary. Located in Bethesda, Maryland, AAI has contributed to the health of all Americans by working to advance the field of immunology and by seeking better ways to prevent, treat and cure disease. With more than 7,600 members in 65 countries, AAI fosters the exchange of scientific ideas and information by organizing scientific meetings and courses, publishing a highly-respected scholarly journal, and promoting a better understanding of immunology and the work of research scientists. Primarily through funding from the National Institutes of Health, AAI members are working on some of the most critically important and promising areas of basic and clinical research with profound implications for a wide range of diseases and conditions, including: developing effective vaccines for influenza, HIV/AIDS, and agents of bioterrorism; discovering new defenses against re-emerging tuberculosis and drug-resistant bacterial infections; regulating debilitating autoimmune diseases such as diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis; developing treatments to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs and bone marrow; and understanding the immunological basis of cancer and developing immune-based therapies. AAI is the largest, most prestigious professional association for immunologists in the world. I am proud that it is located in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District, which I am privileged to represent. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating AAI on this historic centennial occasion and extend to it all good wishes for continued success in its important work.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this attempt to strip worker protections in this country by shutting down the National Labor Relations Board. The Majority argues that this bill somehow removes ``uncertainty'' in the economy. In reality, it does exactly the opposite. By removing all authority from the Board that enforces labor law, it creates unworkable deadlock. The NLRB orders union elections, certifies and decertifies unions after elections, and makes decisions on unfair labor practices when they are filed by employers or employees. Without a functional NLRB, there is no enforcement of workers' rights. And with no alternative means of resolving disputes, workers may resort to strikes. The President has nominated two Republicans to fill the vacant seats on the NLRB and has renominated the Board members in dispute in the DC Circuit case. If the Majority is really interested in a functional Board, they should urge their colleagues in the Senate to vote on those nominations without delay. Today's bill will destabilize labor relations and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, while the Continuing Resolution we vote on today is a marginal improvement over the version that passed the House, it still fails to replace sequestration and underfunds our Nation's critical needs. House Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation to replace sequestration and save the 750,000 jobs that the Congressional Budget Office tells us would be lost this year alone under that failed policy. And now we are voting on a Continuing Resolution that keeps those cuts in place for the rest of the year. I appreciate the Senate's efforts to improve this bill, updating appropriations plans for the several other Departments and including marginal funding increases for several important priorities, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, Head Start, transportation safety, and local law enforcement. It brings transportation funding in line with the MAP-21 policy that passed last year, freeing up more than $720 million for important infrastructure projects. And it includes a necessary extension of the TANF program, which was set to expire at the end of this month. However, by continuing sequestration and failing to update seven of our appropriations bills to reflect current policy and priorities, this bill shortchanges vital programs. It cuts more deeply into environmental programs than even the House bill, making it more difficult to keep our air and water clean and healthy. It underfunds implementation of the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, hampering efforts to expand access to health care, improve consumer protections, and rein in the excesses of the financial industry. This legislation also continues to scapegoat federal employees, extending their pay freeze through the end of the year. While I believe Congress can afford a pay freeze, the federal workers who care for our veterans, protect our borders, conduct research into life-saving treatments and innovative technologies, and inspect our Nation's food supply cannot. These hardworking federal employees have already had their pay frozen for two years and contributed more than $100 billion to reduce our deficit. They should not be denied a partial 0.5 percent cost-of-living increase. Unfortunately, our choice today is between this legislation and a total government shutdown. While I would have liked to see a much better bill before us today--one that responsibly replaces the sequester and makes the necessary investments in critical programs and personnel--I will vote for this bill because a government shutdown would be even more damaging for our economy and the civil servants who work on behalf of our country every day. But once this bill has passed, and we have avoided yet another manufactured crisis, we must work together to address our most important priority--the economy and jobs. We know from Europeans that austerity does not work--it is time to craft a responsible policy that addresses our jobs deficit and puts our Nation on a path to long-term sustainability.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am the only speaker.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to urge our colleagues to vote against this Republican budget for a variety of reasons. First of all, this is an uncompromising, ideological approach to our budget issues. We've just been through a major national campaign where both Presidential candidates, President Obama and Governor Romney, agreed on one thing, and that was that the people in this country faced a fundamental choice in the direction we were going to take. The American people voted, and they resoundingly rejected the approach that is now taken once again for the third year in a row in this Republican budget. This budget, as we've heard over the last couple of days, fails on a number of counts. Number one, it adopts the European-style austerity approach that we've seen slow down economies in many parts of Europe. We should instead be focusing on job growth and putting people back to work rather than a budget, like this budget, which will result in 750,000 fewer Americans working by the end of this year. That's according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It will result in more than 2 million fewer people working next year. It also fails the test of taking a balanced approach because it is founded on the failed idea that giving another round of tax cuts to people at the very high end of the income scale will somehow trickle down and lift up all the other boats. We know that hasn't worked, and yet it is pursued once again such that everybody in the Republican budget is asked to sacrifice except folks at the very top, everybody else, including middle class Americans who will see their tax burden go up in order to finance tax breaks for people at the very high end. We Democrats offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to say don't increase taxes on middle class Americans, and all our Republican colleagues voted ``no.'' It is based on the idea that we should dramatically cut investments that are important to help our economy grow. We know we have an aging infrastructure problem. We know we need to modernize our national infrastructure to compete in the global economy; yet this cuts our infrastructure and transportation budget by over 20 percent when we just got a grade of D-plus from the American Society of Civil Engineers and when we have 15 percent unemployment in the construction industry. It makes it harder for students to go to college. The Republican budget will double the student loan interest rate in July from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. In the part of our budget where we make important investments in science and research and education, it more than doubles the sequester cut. It violates important commitments we've made to our seniors. It reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole so that seniors with high health care costs will pay thousands of dollars more over the period of this budget. It turns Medicare into a voucher program so seniors are faced with the risk of rising health care costs. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it's based on this false idea that you can claim to balance the budget in 10 years when you claim also to be getting rid of ObamaCare when all they do is get rid of the benefits of ObamaCare, but this budget only reaches its claim of balance because they keep the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. I urge my colleagues to reject this approach and to adopt the balanced Democratic approach to dealing with these national challenges. I yield back the balance of my time.