Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have left.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to my colleagues' attention the ``First Person Singular'' interview by Amanda Abrams that appeared in the Washington Post magazine on Sunday, July 15, 2012 about my constituent, Carmen Castro-Conroy, the senior HUD-certified housing counselor serving my congressional district. I commend this article to my colleagues because it highlights the dedication and compassion of the HUD-certified counselors who are assisting those hardest hit by the housing crisis. These counselors, whose services are funded by the federal government, help homeowners who are behind or at risk of becoming behind on their mortgages to analyze their options, prepare modification applications, and advocate on their behalf. Statistics show that homeowners who utilize these counseling services have greater success in obtaining mortgage relief from their lenders than those who do not. My staff and I have worked with Ms. Castro-Conroy since the housing crisis began. She is a leader in her field--a truly outstanding, professional and dedicated public servant. As Ms. Castro-Conroy notes in her interview, applying for assistance is often emotionally difficult--and made even more so by the poor quality of service homeowners so often receive from the banks. Counselors like Ms. Castro- Conroy help homeowners to navigate these challenges with diligence and care. I hope that this article will help to educate my colleagues who fund these counseling services and the homeowners who use them about the invaluable services that our HUD-certified counselors are providing. First Person Singular: Carmen Castro-Conroy, 40, Gaithersburg, Housing Counselor, Housing Initiative Partnership (By Amanda Abrams) We see a lot of families who have either lost their jobs or experienced income reduction through a cut in salary or another type of crisis related to illness, death, divorce, disability. We see all of it. They feel overwhelmed. Our job is to educate them so they can know all the options available and make good decisions. Losing a home is devastating; just thinking about losing a home is very stressful. It's not necessarily just a house that we're talking about, it's a family. Some clients come to us when things have very much deteriorated, and they're under a lot of stress and their health is at risk. Not everyone will stay in the homes they're in, but it's better to be at peace than to try to keep a home that they cannot afford and end up in a hospital. It's difficult if you've lived in a home for a long time, and it's the only place that you think you're going to be okay. Many times, even if they have family or friends, they feel embarrassed to let people know what they're going through, so they suffer in silence. I tell them that regardless of the outcome, they're not going to be going through this by themselves. It's my responsibility to encourage them and to lift them up. I tell them, ``This is a house; you're bigger than this, and you're going to come out of this stronger.'' I hear a lot of judgment out there of people that go into default, but I always think it could happen to anybody. I have clients who never thought they'd be diagnosed with cancer. Never thought they'd lose a husband. Never thought they were going to lose their job. It makes me very conscious about how one day you could think you have everything, and the next day your life could dramatically change. I just got an outcome this week of a case I opened in January 2011. This was a client whose husband left her with five children to care for. She went from being a stay-at-home mom to finding a full-time job, but her income still wasn't enough to make regular mortgage payments. She just qualified for a permanent modification, so she'll be able to stay in the property. I love what I do. I was thinking about this during the weekend, during Mass. This is one way to show that you love God, working in the face of people that are in trouble, people that are suffering. Before '08, I was working in a home-ownership education program. We were all pulled out from that to serve in foreclosure intervention counseling. We didn't know how long it was going to last, and now we're in the fourth year of crisis. And we don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Speaker, I am honored that Carmen Castro-Conroy is my constituent and that she is able to provide such outstanding service to so many others.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, today's legislation has more to do with undermining environmental review of mining on public lands than the production of rare earths and other critical minerals, and I will oppose it today. Specifically, H.R. 4402 would let mining companies operating on public lands set time limits for each part of the environmental review process and then arbitrarily cap total environmental review time at 30 months. The bill then elevates mining over hunting, fishing, grazing, conservation and any other public purpose and places new restrictions on judicial review. Finally, the definition of ``strategic and critical minerals'' in this legislation is so broad as to encompass virtually every mineral that is or could be mined on public lands--including such common materials as sand, clay and gravel. If the majority was seriously interested in targeting the production of strategic and critical minerals on public lands, we would have adopted the amendment offered by our colleague Rep. Paul Tonko expressly for that purpose. Instead, the Tonko amendment was defeated on a party line vote and so we are left with the serious defects of the underlying legislation. Madam Chair, we can responsibly develop our natural resources and protect our environment at the same time. H.R. 4402 ignores that central truth and should be opposed by every member of this body.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6018, the State Department Authorization Act and to thank Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for working together to bring this important, bipartisan bill to the floor. This act authorizes funds for our embassies to function and for our diplomats to promote U.S. national interests abroad. Congress has not sent a State Authorization bill to the President's desk in years. To get this bill on the suspension calendar, it had to be scrubbed of all controversial provisions. As a consequence, the bill contains no authorization for foreign assistance programs and includes no proposals for much needed foreign aid reform. The bill does, however, include a number of provisions to provide for and protect our men and women serving to advance American interests around the world. The bill authorizes funding for the State Department, the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the multilateral organizations to which the U.S. is a party, such as the United Nations. Our national security rests on four pillars: the strength of our democracy and economy, defense, diplomacy, and development. Whether in Yemen, where there are growing concerns about that nation becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda or in Afghanistan, where a strong diplomatic presence is helping to facilitate the transition of security responsibility from the coalition forces to the government of Afghanistan, the men and women who serve in our diplomatic corps are on the front lines, in cooperation with our armed forces, protecting U.S. national security. Mr. Speaker, the men and women who work at the State Department provide vital services to the nation. Both Foreign Service Officers and Civil Service employees monitor and analyze developments throughout the world, and proudly represent our nation and advance our interests around the globe. It is essential that they have the resources they need to perform their jobs on behalf of our nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, I rise in support of the bill. The House originally passed this measure by a vote of 411 to 2 in May. The Senate then passed the measure by unanimous consent on June 29. The purpose of the bill is to extend to Israel a U.S. Government loan guarantee and U.S. defense stockpile transfer authority. Israel is an essential American ally in the Middle East. The rapid change that region is undergoing will have a significant impact on the national security of both our countries. In light of this, S. 2165 helps to reinforce our support for the security of Israel by extending until Sept. 30, 2015, the U.S. Government loan guarantees. The measure also expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should take a number of actions to strengthen the defense of Israel, including: providing support for its ``Iron Dome'' air defense system; providing Israel with air refueling tankers and specialized munitions; and expanding intelligence cooperation between our two countries. By passing this bill today, we reaffirm our support for the right of Israel to defend itself and demonstrate our ongoing commitment to Israel as an ally of the United States.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 459, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, with respect to the CBO estimate, if it was true that over the 10-year period you had tax revenue loaded in the way that would sort of so-called deceive the impact of the deficit, it would stand to reason it would get worse over the second 10 years. In fact, the deficit savings, in other words, the reductions to the deficit, is greater over the second 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, than the deficit reduction over the first 10 years. And if you repeal the bill, as the Republicans are proposing to do today, you will not only add to the deficit in the first 10 years, but you'll add even more to the deficit over the 20-year period. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, a member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Oklahoma, called this bill unaffordable. We heard the debate a little bit earlier about what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said about this bill, the Affordable Care Act. They say if you repeal the Affordable Care Act, it will increase the deficit over the next 10 years, and it will increase it by over $1 trillion in the second 10 years. Yet, we have this bill on the floor today without even a fresh Congressional Budget Office estimate. So nobody knows how those numbers may or may not change. What we do know is that the last assessment that they give us is that the action that our Republican colleagues are proposing today would increase--increase--our national deficit. That is not fiscal responsibility. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it's quite a scene to see so many of our colleagues rush to the floor of this House to call upon this Congress to deny the American people health care protections, patient protections, that every Member of this Congress has. If the child of a Member of this Congress has preexisting conditions, whether it's diabetes, whether it's asthma, their child gets covered. If their child is 25 years old and didn't happen to have health insurance, they can be covered on the health insurance plan. And yet this bill to repeal ObamaCare would deny to the American people the same kind of patient protections that every Member of this Congress enjoys. It's a sad day. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. What we're engaged in here in the House of Representatives right now is a total waste of taxpayer money. It's no wonder the American people think so little of this institution. We are now on our 31st effort in this House to repeal all or part of ObamaCare. We have not yet voted once on the President's jobs bill, which he presented last September. Two numbers. Thirty-one; that's the number of times this House will now have voted to repeal ObamaCare. Zero; that's the number of times that we voted on the President's jobs bill. I've been listening to this debate this afternoon and we've heard the same old, tired misrepresentations and distortions that we heard the first time around: Government takeover of health care. In the year 2010, PolitiFact rated that the Lie of the Year. And it just goes on and on and on like whack-a-mole. The American people do not want to relitigate this issue. What the American people want us to do is focus on jobs and the economy. Let's get on with that business. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, during the debate over passage of the health care bill, ObamaCare, we heard a campaign of massive distortions. We heard it was going to create death panels--not true. We heard it was going to be a government takeover of health care. The independent PolitiFact called that the 2010 lie of the year. Now we hear it's going to wreak havoc on the economy, when the head of the Congressional Budget Office, our nonpartisan referee, just said 2 weeks ago that they don't think this bill's having any significant impact on the economy. And on and on and on. We heard from our Republican colleagues they were going to repeal and replace. We've now repealed this 31 times in the House--no replacement. And what does that mean? That's the status quo. Our colleagues make it sound like the status quo is just great in the health care system when the insurance companies got to run the show, when they got to deny kids coverage even if they had asthma or diabetes and preexisting conditions, when they got to say you're not covered if you're 22 years old, you can't stay on your parents' health care bill, when premiums doubled between 2000 and 2006 while insurance company profits quadrupled. That's what the Republicans are proposing to go back to. We continue to hear this distortion about Medicare. The reality is that we reduce some of the big taxpayer subsidies to the private Medicare plan. Some of them were being subsidized 140 percent of fee- for-service; average subsidy, 114 percent. We used some of those savings to eliminate the prescription drug doughnut hole that seniors fell into, to eliminate many of the copays for preventive care services. Now, the Republican budget that every Republican in this House has voted for, that Mitt Romney has endorsed, they took all that $500 billion in savings, every penny. But you know what? They didn't plow one penny back into strengthening Medicare benefits. They would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. So that's what this debate is all about, trying to make sure that we provide the best health care we can at the best price. And to witness this effort to deny patients across this country the same kind of patient protections that Members of this Congress have, I think, is something that the American people, when they focus on this, as they clearly are, will clearly reject. What we should be doing, instead of taking away from millions of Americans the kind of patient protections that Members of Congress have, what we should be doing is focusing on jobs and the economy. And it is a shame that, as we're going to vote tomorrow for the 31st time to repeal ObamaCare, we haven't had a single vote on the President's jobs initiative, an initiative that he brought before this body last September. He was at the podium where the presiding officer stands now. He asked Congress to pass his jobs initiative. Not a single vote on that, and yet here we are, our 31st vote to repeal the kind of patient protections that Members of Congress enjoy, repeal them for the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues will reject this effort. I know the American people have already made it clear through their voices and their response to surveys that they want to move on. They want to move on. They want to deal with jobs, and they want to deal with the economy, and they want to end the political charades. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think this whole conversation about tax or a penalty has gotten us a little bit into the silly season. If you go to the State of Massachusetts Web site and you look at the RomneyCare plan, what they say is that if you're able to afford insurance but decide not to get it, you will pay a penalty collected through the tax system--a penalty collected through the tax system. ObamaCare is modeled on RomneyCare. And as Governor Romney understood at one time, if you say to people who can afford health insurance, it's okay that you don't get it; just show up at the hospital and everybody else will pay your bill through their higher premiums or taxpayers who have to pay uncompensated care to hospitals, that's free-riding on the system. That's freeloading on the system. That's saying to every other person, every other taxpayer that other people should be responsible for paying for the health care bill of the person who chooses not to get health care coverage. Yes, if you can afford health care coverage but you decide to free- ride on other people, then there's a little penalty under this bill just as there is under Governor Romney's proposal--a proposal, by the way, that was once widely supported by our Republican colleagues when they talked about the importance of personal responsibility and the importance of making sure that people who are going to use the health care system took some responsibility for paying for their health care system. I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and I would like to take a moment to recognize the career and the retirement of Gail Millar, the General Counsel for the House Budget Committee, and to thank her for the service she has provided to not just the Committee, but to the Congress and the United States of America in a wide variety of roles. Ms. Millar is retiring after more than three decades of dedicated service to our Nation as an employee of the Federal Government. In 1981, she began her time on Capitol Hill by joining the Senate Budget Committee under Senator Pete Domenici and became Chief Counsel. She went from there to the Senate Parliamentarian's Office and stayed there from 1984 through 1988. After the departure of the Senate Parliamentarian, Bob Dove, she took on the enormous responsibility in 1987 as First Assistant to the new Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin. He has characterized her as a ``great colleague, smart, courageous, reliable, loyal, and tough as nails.'' When she announced that she was leaving the office, Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd made a personal appeal for her to stay with the Office. Even so, soon after, Ms. Millar began as an assistant counsel for the Congressional Budget Office, rising to General Counsel during her stay there, which lasted from 1989 to 2000. Ms. Millar's area of expertise was budget scorekeeping and working with budget analysts and program analysts on budget issues. She also served from 2000 to 2002 as clerk for the Subcommittee on Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary and Related Agencies at the House Committee on Appropriations. After that position, she worked from 2002 to 2005 as associate director for budget policy and management in the Office of Technical Assistance at the Department of the Treasury, a job in which she and her staff advised governments around the world about how to put in place budget processes and procedures to advance their nations. In 2005, she began serving as Chief Counsel to the Senate Budget Committee before leaving to work for the House Budget Committee as General Counsel in 2007. As Counsel to both the House and Senate Budget Committees, Ms. Millar has been dedicated to the proper interpretation of the law, the drafting of bills and amendments, and the development of important concepts related to those laws. Throughout her public service, she has fearlessly advocated to preserve the integrity of the budget process and the principles of the House and Senate. For all of the outstanding work she has done in her 32-year career, her greatest accomplishments and her proudest achievements are her two children, Joe and Jeanne. We deeply appreciate Gail Millar's long service to Congress and to the Executive Branch, which has been manifested in so many ways and in so many roles. We will truly miss the wisdom that she brings to her work. We wish her the best in her retirement and in her new opportunity to spend more time with her family and friends.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this misguided effort to inject the politics of a presidential election year into what should be a serious investigation. I oppose the resolutions to hold the Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal and civil contempt, because they are unwarranted and motivated by politics instead of facts. I voted for a resolution sponsored by Rep. John Dingell to require the Oversight and Government Committee to conduct a real investigation into the Fast and Furious operation. The American public deserves a legitimate investigation into the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Arizona. Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure that the ATF was abiding by the law and ensure that the ``gun-walking'' programs that took place under the Bush and Obama Administrations do not take place again. The American people deserve answers and they deserve an investigation that is based on fact and the truth, not on political gamesmanship and finger-pointing. Unfortunately, these resolutions are not based on real investigations or the desire to prevent future ``gun-walking'' operations. This contempt resolution alleges that the Attorney General is not cooperating with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation. The Attorney General has testified before Congress nine times and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has produced 7,600 pages of documents to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Additionally, two dozen DOJ officials have testified before the Congress. Something lost in the political allegations on cable news is that the documents at issue in the Contempt Citation are not related to the Committee's investigation into how ``gun-walking'' was initiated and utilized in Operation Fast and Furious. Attorney General Holder has turned documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious over to the committee. This contempt citation is over the DOJ's internal deliberative documents unrelated to the actual Fast and Furious operation. This contempt resolution does not list any proof that the Attorney General had any knowledge of the Fast and Furious operation. In fact, when the Attorney General did discover the Fast and Furious program he took action to shut down the operation, held those responsible accountable, requested an investigation by the DOJ's IG office and cooperated with House and Senate investigations. To this day, no evidence has shown that he or the President had any knowledge of the Fast and Furious operation. What the American people also deserve to know is why the Majority is putting partisan politics above the public's right to a fair and balanced investigation. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee Republicans have not granted a single Democratic witness request in 16 months. If this investigation was on the up and up, it seems that the Democrats should be allowed the opportunity to bring forward at least one witness. In fact, the Republicans refused ten requests by Democrats to hold a hearing with the former Acting Director of the ATF Kenneth Melson. He was in charge of the agency responsible for the Fast and Furious operation. The Majority also rejected requests to have William Hoover, the former Acting Deputy Director of the ATF during Operation Fast and Furious, testify before the committee. They also refused to allow former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey to testify about gun-walking programs initiated under the previous administration. I hope that by opposing these resolutions we can have a real congressional investigation into the ATF's ``gun-walking'' operations and pass legislation to ensure that similar operations never happen again. The Dingell Resolution I voted for requires the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to hold bipartisan public hearings with the Kenneth Melson, William Hoover, Michael Mukasey, and others. The House of Representatives has never voted to hold a sitting Attorney General in contempt. I don't think Republicans and Chairman Issa have provided us a real reason to do so today. Instead, they have prevented a legitimate investigation from taking place and continue to move the goalpost again and again to demand documents unrelated to the Fast and Furious Operations. Their conduct has revealed they are far more interested in getting Attorney General Holder than getting the facts. This has been a total abuse of power and process. I believe that we should be voting on the President's jobs bill today instead of this misguided and partisan resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Spiros Droggitis, a Bethesda, Maryland resident who retired from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 31, 2011 after 35 years of service in the Federal Government, including three years working in the U.S. Senate. During his three decades with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. Droggitis provided support, advice, scheduling and planning for a variety of programs and two NRC Commissioners. Since July 2007, Mr. Droggitis served as associate director for Federal and External Affairs in the Office of Congressional Affairs at NRC. In that position, he was the primary point of contact for communications and outreach with other Federal agencies and external organizations, including public interest groups, non-governmental organizations, and the nuclear industry. During his distinguished career at the agency, he served in several senior positions and received numerous performance awards and accolades for his contributions. Among his many accomplishments, he was recognized in 1988 for his participation in the agency's 10-year effort to consolidate NRC offices scattered across the Washington metropolitan area to a single location in Rockville, Maryland. More recently, he was a member of the Headquarters Fukushima Support Team that assisted in communicating information about the nuclear accident in Japan following the March 11, 2011 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami. After graduating in 1974 from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, Mr. Droggitis began his career as an assistant press liaison for the U.S. Senate under the Sergeant-at-Arms and also worked as a researcher in the office of Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine. He later joined Senator Muskie's staff full time as a personal assistant during the 1976 reelection campaign, doing advance work for campaign events, traveling with the Senator, and interacting with the media and the public. Following the election, he became an assistant to the Senator and was given a special assignment analyzing data on a state-wide energy questionnaire. He also developed a method of providing more timely responses to constituent mail that was approved and instituted by his supervisor. Mr. Droggitis joined the NRC in 1979 as a congressional liaison officer in the Office of Congressional Affairs. He then served as a special assistant to Commissioner James K. Asselstine from 1982 until 1987. At the end of Commissioner Asselstine's term in 1987, Mr. Droggitis went to work in the State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs in the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, where he served as a senior intergovernmental programs analyst responsible for developing and maintaining relationships with state, local and tribal governments. Mr. Droggitis was selected as special assistant to Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield in September 2002 and became his executive assistant in October 2004. Throughout his career, Mr. Droggitis has demonstrated a dedication to the NRC's organizational values of integrity, service, openness, commitment, cooperation, excellence and respect. He and his wife, Ottilie, plan to return to his native state of Maine to spend time with friends and family. I offer both of them my best wishes and thank Mr. Droggitis for his service to our nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3187, as amended, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. I am proud to represent many of the hard working employees at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and this legislation provides them with the resources to fulfill FDA's mission to protect and advance public health and safety. This bipartisan legislation enables FDA to review drugs and medical devices in a timely fashion, reduces costs by authorizing a new user fee program for generic drugs, and takes important steps to prevent and mitigate critical drug shortages. As the co-chairman of the Childhood Cancer Caucus, I am pleased that this legislation contains several provisions that will facilitate the development of safe and effective childhood cancer treatments. The legislation makes permanent two key complementary pediatric drug programs--the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). Both of these programs foster the development of prescription drugs for children and the safe use of drugs by children. Finally, I am pleased that this legislation incorporates the Creating Hope Act, which I introduced with Representatives McCaul, Butterfield, and Myrick. Under this incentive program, a pharmaceutical company that develops a drug specifically to treat a rare pediatric disease will be rewarded with a priority review voucher for another drug. I'm hopeful that this program will kick start private sector investment in new and innovative treatments for children and families affected by cancer. I strongly urge my colleagues to support S. 3187 to provide FDA the resources it requires to guarantee the safety of American's prescription drugs and medical devices.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, there are now 34 days left in this legislative session. We could--and should--be focusing our attention on serious legislation that will create jobs and make a real difference in the lives of our constituents. Like a long term transportation bill. Or preventing a doubling of student loan interest rates. Or the President's American Jobs Act. Instead, under the pretense of lowering gas prices, we are dealing with this ill-considered collection of seven proposals that together would gut the Clean Air Act, trump responsible public lands management, and needlessly encumber the President's ability to safeguard our energy security. In a radical departure from over forty years of successful, science- based clean air regulation, this legislation would for the first time require the EPA to consider industry costs when determining what level of ozone is ``safe'' for Americans to breathe--which is like a doctor changing a patient's diagnosis based on the cost of the treatment. Costs clearly matter, and they are routinely incorporated into the scoping of compliance plans. But they should never be allowed to interfere with the initial, scientific determination as to what is safe for Americans and what is not. This kind of error is further extended to the public lands provisions of this bill, which elevate energy production over hunting, fishing, recreation, conservation and other management uses while imposing arbitrary deadlines for the approval of onshore drilling applications regardless of safety concerns. Finally, the President's ability to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to respond to disruptions in our Nation's energy supply would for the first time be conditioned on a poorly defined new drilling plan that is completely unrelated to the purpose of the SPR. Mr. Chair, this is not serious legislation. It is hastily thrown together legislative filler which everyone in this chamber understands is dead on arrival in the Senate. Given the magnitude of the challenges we face, we simply do not have this kind of time to waste.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5855, the FY13 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I regret that this bill, especially during the amendment process on the floor of the House, became a political football. I hope that when the final bill emerges from negotiations with the Senate and the White House, it will reflect the will and priorities of the American people. Funding appropriated by H.R. 5855 is intended to support and address the vital needs of our men and women working to ensure the country's homeland security. The bill appropriates a total of $46 billion for the Department in FY 2013--including $39.1 billion in discretionary spending, $1.4 billion in mandatory spending, and $5.5 billion for emergency disaster relief. The measure significantly increases funding for FEMA state and local grants and for Homeland cyber-security activities. Despite these benefits, I have concerns about how the bill disregards the mandates of the Budget Control Act, how it treats civilian employees at DHS and how the bill delves into unprecedented territory regarding the reproductive rights of women. The spending caps set by the bi-partisan Budget Control Act ensured that prioritized programs could be funded adequately even as discretionary reductions were achieved. The harmful discretionary top- line set by the House Republican budget, and facilitated by this bill, threatens funding for other equally vital programs, threatens American jobs, and threatens the services relied upon by our seniors and our veterans. Further, I am concerned that the bill does not fund the .5 percent cost of living adjustment provided as part of the president's FY13 budget request. Federal employees have already sacrificed $60 billion of salary over ten years as part of the two-year pay freeze. Starting in January 2013, new federal employees will contribute more to their pensions to offset the $15 billion cost of Unemployment Insurance Extension legislation. And with this bill, federal employees are asked to give up what was already a small .5% partial COLA. This provision essentially extends for another year the 2-year pay freeze currently covering DHS employees. Finally, I am disappointed by the passage and inclusion in the bill of an amendment offered by Steve King of Iowa, which I opposed and which prohibits the use of the funds in the bill from being used to implement the so called ``Morton Memos.'' The memos, written by ICE Director Morton, provide a plan to deploy ICE resources in the most cost effective manner. Specifically, they provide guidance to ensure that limited enforcement resources are focused primarily on criminals or other individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety. The King amendment will prohibit the department from exercising this common sense prosecutorial discretion. It would force the Department to treat young people who were brought to the United States as kids and who have graduated from American schools the same as individuals who knowingly broke immigration laws and who have committed crimes in the United States. That makes no sense. Bringing a bill to the floor that cuts the resources available to the men and women responsible for protecting the homeland security of the Nation and then tying their hands with unnecessary and ill-informed amendments is counterproductive and undercuts the bill's intended purpose.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's Conservation and Economic Growth Act is an amalgam of 14 separate public lands bills that have little to do with conservation or economic growth. Indeed, while a few of the provisions--like Rep. Wittman's proposal to create an interagency cross-cut budget for Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts--have merit, many more run directly counter to sound natural resource management. For example, under the guise of border control, Title 14 of today's bill would create a 100 mile zone along our borders with Canada and Mexico where over thirty of environmental laws--including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Protection Act--would not apply. There is no evidence that any of these laws are hindering border enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security is firmly opposed to this measure. Title 11 of this legislation would similarly undermine the National Environmental Protection Act while providing a windfall to those who graze livestock on federal lands by doubling the current term limits for grazing permits. And Title 3 of H.R. 2578 is essentially an earmark for a single corporation in the state of Alaska, which threatens both the local economy as well as the largest tracts of remaining old growth forest in the United States. Mr. Chair, I support environmental conservation and meaningful steps to accelerate economic growth--which is why I will be opposing today's legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Air Traffic Controllers Association on the 25th anniversary of the Union's founding. NATCA represents more than 20,000 air traffic controllers and other aviation safety professionals who run the safest, most efficient air traffic control system in the world. These men and women are dedicated aviation professionals who come to work every day knowing that they have to perform their jobs with 100 percent accuracy 100 percent of the time. The American people entrust their lives and the lives of their loved ones to NATCA members each and every time they step on an airplane. This is a responsibility that NATCA takes seriously. Since NATCA's founding in 1987, the United States National Airspace System has maintained its record as the safest airspace in the world. Mr. Speaker, NATCA's 20,000 FAA aviation safety professionals are dedicated federal employees. Our nation's incredible aviation safety record is due in part to the fact that these men and women are federal employees whose number one priority is to ensure the safety of the flying public. I applaud NATCA on this remarkable achievement and congratulate them on their 25th anniversary.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 683. This resolution expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. These laws discriminated against people of Chinese descent and blatantly contradicted our belief that all people are created equal. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. The bill imposed a ten-year moratorium on immigration and naturalization of Chinese settlers. The law was expanded several times to apply to all persons of Chinese descent and each expansion imposed increasingly tougher restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization. As the resolution before us today states, the Chinese exclusion laws ``enshrined in law the exclusion of the Chinese from the democratic process and the promise of American freedom.'' The United States Senate passed a similar resolution in October 2011. I believe passage of H. Res. 683 will be a historic acknowledgment by Congress of the injustice of the Chinese exclusion laws. I am proud to cosponsor this resolution and I encourage my colleagues to support it.