Chris Van Hollen

I am proud to be a cosponsor, as are many on this subcommittee, of these bills.

The Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act has 10 Republican and 10 Democrat cosponsoring it.

There are no grounds for softening or lifting the sanctions.

If the United States does not take any affirmative action... do you believe that would embolden Russia?

We need to come together across party lines to respond.

I think in addition to those policies--and I support those kinds of investments.

We have had high productivity growth over time... unfortunately, those increases in productivity rates have not translated into large increases in real wages.

We cannot afford to go down this road again.

I want to take a moment to recognize one person in particular who has been one of the chief architects of the stronger rules that have been put in place over the past several years to rein in Wall Street misbehavior and excess.

These priorities are wrong. American voters agree: 80 percent--80 percent in one poll, that is Republicans and Democrats and Independents--agree we need tough rules and stronger, not weaker, penalties for Wall Street.

I think we need to look at all our policies that are outside the purview of the Fed and change them.

I think you in part anticipated my question. I know you do not want to comment on specific policies that are before the Congress, but in terms of fiscal policies, actions the Congress can take that could increase productivity over time…

The facts show that Donald Trump is wrong and his Chief Economic Adviser is wrong about every major reason that they have given to tear up Dodd-Frank.

I look forward to hearing more from you about the current state of the economy, the importance--especially the importance of strong rules to guard against economic calamity.

Will you agree that it would be a bad idea to pass a tax plan that the Joint Tax Committee, using their dynamic scoring analysis, concludes will increase the deficit and the national debt?

The Wharton School study cuts it by $55 billion, which was a surprise to many people.

There is no doubt about that, and as I said, I had hoped that maybe we would begin with something like that.

A lot of us had hoped that we might get off to a start in this Congress on a bipartisan basis.

Please, as someone who has a reputation as a straight shooter, do not come before this committee and pretend this is in balance.

Look, it is flimflam. I understand you are now representing President Trump who put the parameters that you described on you.

You cut the Social Security disability. I think that is a bad choice.

You do not want to close one tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit.

You do not take away one special tax break for anybody, hedge fund managers, for the purpose of reducing that debt.

This is only really great for taxpayers who are in the top 1 percent.

I think all of us would like to see us spend what we need on our national defense and national security. We also all, I would hope, do not want to see money wasted there more than anywhere else.