Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We keep hearing this mathematical fantasy that somehow the Republican budget balances. I just want to turn to an authority. He is the now-chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Here is what he said last year: One of the problems I have had with budgets that I have looked at is that they use a lot of gimmicks. Now, when there was an anticipation that ObamaCare would go away, and that all of that money would still be there, that's not realistic. I'd like to see us get to a real accounting with the budget. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker; the Affordable Care Act is still here, the revenue is still here, and the Republican budget assumes that revenue for the purpose of achieving balance at the same time they are getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. That leaves people's heads spinning and it means the budget is not in balance. I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and colleague and the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This budget does not reflect the priorities of the American people. If you ask most Americans what kind of economy they want, they would say they want an economy that is growing rapidly, with more shared prosperity. You don't get that kind of economy with trickle-down economics with the kind of theory that is embedded in the Republican budget. That theory is that if you provide tax rate cuts to people at the very top-- to millionaires--somehow the benefits are going to trickle down and lift everybody up. We tried that in the 2000s under George Bush. It didn't work. What happened--not surprisingly--is folks at the top who got tax cuts ended up with even more take-home income. Everybody else was either treading water or falling behind. Why we would want a budget based on a failed economic strategy is going to leave the American public scratching their heads. The approach we recommended was one where we provide more tax relief to hard-working Americans. We wanted to expand the provision for child and dependent tax credits so that people can make sure their kids are in a safe environment while they are at work and not have to break the family bank in order to do it. We want to invest in our kids' education; we want to invest in scientific research, and we want to pay for it by closing some of those tax breaks that encourage American corporations to ship American jobs and money overseas and getting rid of the special tax rates that hedge fund managers have that hard-working Americans don't. We proposed fixing a tax system that is rigged in favor of the special interests and the very powerful and changing in a way that provides additional help to people who are being squeezed and are in the middle or working their way into the middle. That is an economic plan that works for everybody in the country, not one that just works for people at the very top. What we saw just last week was the number one economic priority of our Republican colleagues was to eliminate the estate tax on estates above $10 million, help 5,500 Americans run up the deficit by $270 billion, and then come back and say, Hey, the deficit just went up by $270 billion because we provided an estate tax cut to estates $10 million and up. Now, let's cut our kids' education. Let's increase the amount we charge seniors for their prescription drugs. Let's raise the cost of student loans. Let's cut our investment in kids' education. That is what this Republican budget does. It is not that our colleagues don't believe in this failed theory, but you would think, at some point, reality would intrude, and people would say we need an economy that works for every American, not just a few. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. Let's start again in a way that really reflects the greatness of America. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has been focused on trying to make sure we have an economy that works for all Americans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize my constituent, Kenneth Miller, PhD, RN, CFNP, FAAN, FAANP, for his service as President this year of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP). Dr. Miller has had an exemplary career of service with more than 44 years of nursing experience. He received his BSN from the University of Michigan in 1978, a Master's in Medical/Surgery Nursing in 1980, and a PhD in Clinical Nursing Research from the University of Arizona in 1983. Dr. Miller received his Family Nurse Practitioner post-master's certification from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in 1998. Prior to his term as AANP President, Dr. Miller served as the Associate Dean for Academic Administration at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He was also the Director of the School of Nursing for the University of Delaware and the Vice Dean for Internal Programs and Associate Dean for Research and Clinical Scholarship in the College of Nursing at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center. Before his tenure in academia, Dr. Miller held professorial positions at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and as Director of Clinical Nursing Research at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Miller also worked as a clinical nurse in medical centers and hospitals in California, Arizona and Michigan. In addition, he served as a Family Nurse Practitioner in New Mexico, Delaware and the District of Columbia. The American Association of Nurse Practitioners is a national professional membership organization representing 205,000 nurse practitioners nationally. Under Dr. Miller's tenure, AANP membership has grown to more than 57,000 members, making AANP the largest nurse practitioner organization in the world. Dr. Miller has helped lead nurse practitioners in transforming patient-centered health care and has made tremendous strides in ensuring that policy makers and the public understand the care that nurse practitioners provide to millions of Americans each year. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Miller on a successful term as President of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and in thanking him for the excellent care he has and continues to provide to his patients and the nurse practitioner profession.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let's just keep it. This will be known as the Van Hollen-Mulvaney amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am asking unanimous consent.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am willing to withdraw the amendment but only on the understanding--parliamentary inquiry--if I withdraw it and substitute the same amendment in the name of Mr. Mulvaney, can I do that?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the pending paragraph.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am asking unanimous consent to make the main sponsor Mr. Mulvaney.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment at this point in time to strike the pending paragraph.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the meaning of ``is'' is ``is.'' I understand that we are on the first paragraph. Parliamentary inquiry: Is there going to be a point in time when the entire section is pending, such that this amendment would then be considered in order since the amendment is to strike the entire section?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry, just so I understand the ruling.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So it is hard to understand how this could be a violation of the point of order if the Budget Committee says that what we are doing violates the budget process or undermines the budget process.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe, in response to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania on the Appropriations Committee, that our military leadership has said that the funds that are requested for this purpose under OCO are not OCO funds, that they are not war-related funds. That is coming from the Department of Defense. That is coming from the folks who put together the budgets for the Department of Defense. So to just claim that somehow these expenditures, which have been described by Mr. Mulvaney, are now somehow part of the war effort as opposed to the ongoing defense budget is to say to the military leadership that they don't understand how their budgets work. I think they do understand how their budgets work. We are trying to make sure that we protect the integrity of the process so that people can't be using the war account as a slush fund, which is exactly what this measure does.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the ruling, because the amendment strikes all of this section, as opposed to the portion of the section we are currently on, it is being ruled out of order. Is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, since the original amendment was offered by Mr. Mulvaney, to make this the Mulvaney amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with my colleague, Mr. Mulvaney. And now that we have gotten beyond the sort of procedural objections, let's go to the substance of this. This is the first appropriations bill that we have on the floor that raises the question about the budgets that were passed in both the House and the Senate. As I think our colleagues know well by this point, both those budgets engage in an incredible accounting scam with respect to how we fund the Department of Defense and how we fund our military operations. For years, we have distinguished between the moneys that we spend on our ongoing defense programs, called the base budget, and the moneys set aside in the war account, the so-called overseas contingency account funds. What has happened here is that the President, on the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our military leadership, has requested the amount that is necessary to address our overseas contingency operations. But instead of abiding by that request and what was necessary, the Republican budget does this end-run and ends up using our overseas contingency account as a slush fund for funds that have been in the base defense budget. As I was indicating earlier, Mr. Chairman, this accounting scam, the sleight of hand, was something that the Republican Budget Committee just last year strongly objected to and indicated that it violated the budget process. I am going to read another portion of the Republican Budget Committee report from last year on this issue where it says the Budget Committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities with respect to the use of the OCO, the overseas contingency account, designation in the budget process, and it will oppose increases above the level the administration and our military commanders say are necessary to carry out operations. And then it goes on, because those are not war related. So what this House is doing now is engaging in this incredible sleight of hand, and it is only one big problem in the budget before us, along with many other problems. But on this point, I would like to now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) if he would like to say a word on this amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Budget Committee itself has indicated that this violates the budget process.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My understanding of this is it strikes the provision and, therefore, meets the requirements. After all, this is the first bill we are debating since the budget was passed. The budget opens the door wide to this accounting scam that Republicans on the Budget Committee just last year said was a gross runaround of the budget rules. I want to read, Mr. Chairman, from the report from the Budget Committee last year that said that abuse of the OCO cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process.