Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4486, the FY15 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I commend Chairmen Rogers and Culberson and Ranking Members Lowey and Bishop for crafting a bipartisan bill that not only provides for current and former service members and their families but also substantially addresses the veterans' claims backlog. The MilCon-VA bill makes critical investments in our military infrastructure, housing, and services to our nation's veterans, active military members and their families. It provides $71.5 billion in discretionary funding for these programs and activities, including $64.7 billion for the Department of Veteran Affairs. It also provides $58.7 billion in advance funding for the VA in FY16. This legislation also builds on efforts made in last year's MilCon-VA bill to end the claims backlog that continues to plague our VA regional offices, including the VA's Baltimore Regional Office. It fully funds the budget request of $173.3 million for the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) and provides an additional $20 million to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) for digitizing records and staffing needs. The legislation also requires each VA regional office to submit a monthly report on its claims processing performance and imposes even stricter requirements on the poorest performing offices around the country. I am hopeful that these measures will be an important step in ensuring that backlogged claims are expedited as quickly as possible. I do have reservations about a number of provisions contained in the bill, however. I strongly oppose section 411, which prohibits the construction, renovation, or expansion of any facility in the U.S. to house individuals that are currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay. And as the White House outlined in its Statement of Administration Policy, it is disappointing that this bill does not provide full funding for VA Medical Care, potentially delaying the delivery of important health care services to our veterans. Despite my concerns, the MilCon-VA bill reflects our commitment and the promises we have made to our veterans, our service members, and their families. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the latest version of H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014. I want to commend my colleague John Carney on his efforts to address the needs of expatriate health care plans and to ensure that the jobs created by managing these plans remain in the United States. However, the bill, in its current form, would create more problems than it resolves. As you know, the Affordable Care Act established new coverage standards and protections for millions of Americans, including that they cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions nor have their benefits capped at arbitrary annual and lifetime limits. Unfortunately, the bill contains potential loopholes that could weaken coverage for many families and immigrant workers who live in the United States. While I do believe the text of the bill has been improved since its initial consideration, there is still more work to be done. According to the Statement of Administration Policy, the Administration echoes our concerns and it remains willing to work with Congress to find a reasonable solution. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will make the necessary changes in order to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to take this opportunity, it is Chairman Ryan's last year as head of the Budget Committee, and I do want to thank him for the professional way in which he has conducted the committee. Lest he think I am getting carried away, this is an example where process did not lead to a better product, and that is why we are here today because, unfortunately, I have to report that this House Republican budget is the worst of the Republican budgets I have seen in the last 3 years for the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, budgets reflect the choices we make for our country. They tell the American people what we care about and what we care less about. At every juncture in this House Republican budget, they choose to protect very powerful special interests and the most wealthy in our country at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of all the other priorities. For example, they have tax cuts that actually encourage companies to ship American jobs, not products, overseas, while our budget invests right here in the United States of America. Now, we heard the Republican leader say we want a better economy for everybody. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this Republican budget will slow down economic growth right now for the next couple of years, that it will reduce job growth in the next couple of years, all while doing what? Providing another windfall tax break to millionaires. Yes, look at their budget. They want to drop the top tax rate, 39 percent to 25 percent, full 30 percent. What does that mean? $200,000 average tax break for millionaires. Who finances it in their budget? Well, math tells you middle-income taxpayers pay more. They pay $2,000 more per, average, in order to finance trickle-down economics, even though we know from experience that that was a dead end for this country. While our Republican colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, apparently they don't care enough about it to close one single special interest tax loophole to help reduce the deficit--not one, not a hedge fund owner, not a big oil company, not one. And because they say hands off the most powerful and the most privileged, their budget has to come after everybody else, and it does. So it hits our kids' education, early education, K-12. College students are asked to pay more interest. In fact, they got $45 billion savings by charging college kids more interest while they are still in college and not working, again, while hands off the powerful special interests. Seniors, seniors on Medicare see the prescription drug doughnut hole open, the safety net, again, shredded. And all for what purpose? Now, they claim that they are going to somehow balance the budget at the end of the 10-year window. But you know what? They can't have it both ways. We have had over 50 votes here in the House of Representatives from our colleagues to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But guess what. They have got $2 trillion in this budget from revenues and savings from the Affordable Care Act. We use some of those savings. We use those Medicare savings to strengthen Medicare. Mr. Chairman, I now yield the final minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader who has been a fighter for America's priorities.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by joining the chairman of the committee and thanking both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Budget Committee for their hard work and submit, for the Record, their names. Budget Committee Minority Staff List Sarah Abernathy Ellen Balis Kathleen Capstick Zachary Cuff (Intern) Ken Cummings Bridgett Frey Jocelyn M. Griffin Tom Kahn Najy Kamal Andrea Leung Sheila McDowell Diana Meredith Erin Miller Kimberly Overbeek Karen Robb Scott Russell Beth Stephenson Andy Van Wye (Intern) Ted Zegers

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, what we know is old and stale and doesn't work is trickle down economics. The idea you just give the folks at the very top a little bit bigger tax break and somehow it is going to benefit everybody else didn't work and made the deficit go up. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Finance Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman I am now pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It has been a good debate on the floor of the House over the last couple of days. The question boils down to, what are our country's priorities, what are our country's values? We believe we should be focused right now on growing opportunity and growing jobs. That is what our budget does. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the House Republican budget will actually slow down job growth and slow down economic activity over the next couple of years. We invest in our infrastructure to keep America going. Their budget actually has the transportation trust fund go insolvent later this year. We continue to build ladders of opportunity so more people can prosper in this country. The Republican budget protects tax breaks for folks at the very, very top; in fact, provides millionaires with a one- third cut in their tax rate--they do that--but they cut our investment in early education, in K through 12. We actually increase, we increase our early investment education. We think our kids' future is the most important thing for the future growth of this country. We protect our commitments to seniors. We don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, we do not end the Medicare guarantee, and yes, we significantly bring down the deficits and stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio in the out years. We don't do it by playing games. We don't say we are going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and then rely on all the revenue and all the savings from the Affordable Care Act to pretend to hit balance in the out years. As I said earlier, we make sure we learn from our mistakes. In the 16-day shutdown, which was totally unproductive and totally unnecessary and all part of an effort to get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, a lot of Americans got hurt, including our veterans who are on the edge. So we do in this budget what every veteran organization asked this Congress to do: we made sure we advance-fund those appropriations so that next time, God forbid, someone in this House thinks it is a good idea to shut down the government, at least those who served our country are not put at risk in terms of getting the medical and other support they need. So yes, we invest in our veterans, we invest in our kids' future, we maintain our commitments to seniors, and we do that by asking the most powerful and the most privileged special interests to contribute a little bit more as we grow our economy through commonsense bipartisan immigration reform. If you want an America that is going to grow and prosper as one country, where we respect our individual freedoms and liberty and entrepreneurship but also recognize that there are some things that history has taught us we do better by working together, which is what has made us a world economic power, then support the Democratic budget. If you want to continue to support and protect the special interests at the very top on some trickle down theory, that that will help everybody else, then vote for the Republican budget, because that is what they do at the expense of the rest of the country and at the expense of economic growth and prosperity for every American. Vote ``yes'' for jobs, opportunity, and security. Vote for the Democratic budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, look, our Republican colleagues are going to have to choose and tell the American people, either they claim to have a budget that balances in 10 years or they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But right now because they get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, including the revenues and savings, they don't come close to balancing. I keep hearing balance, and the reality is that it has all that revenue from the Affordable Care Act. The one thing we know is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Republican budget will slow down the economy in the next couple years. Ours won't, in part because we make investments in our infrastructure. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is focused on making sure that this country has the modern infrastructure it needs, the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguish member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it would be great if we could all believe in magic. The gentleman says that their budget closes all the tax loopholes. No tax loopholes. In fact, he says theirs is the only budget that terminates the Tax Code all together, gets rid of it. That is interesting because, if you look at the revenue levels coming in under his budget, it is identical to the current Tax Code, every year, exactly as the Congressional Budget Office says, dollar for dollar. In fact, I think he said he got rid of it in fiscal year 2017 or so. But, gee, the dollars keep rolling in just as they would be if you didn't get rid of the Tax Code. And you know why? Because they don't close any of the special interest tax breaks. It is the status quo in terms of the revenue coming in. If we were, in fact, going to close some of those special interest tax breaks, so that we could reduce our deficits, then you wouldn't have those numbers that they have got in their budget resolution. Now, look, we all agree that we need to impose fiscal discipline. The question all along has been, how do we do it? Do we do it in a way where we share responsibility as Americans, or do we do it in a way where some people don't have to pay anything, which means everybody else has to get hit that much harder? Under the Republican budget, and under this Republican study group budget even more, they protect the very wealthy. You are doing great. But at the expense of everybody else. So the gentleman talks about more funds for the National Institutes of Health; they more than double the cuts to the National Institutes of Health from the earlier budget we saw, which, again, I would just remind our colleagues, it was the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee who said that the House Republican budget is draconian, that one. That is from Mr. Rogers. All right? So now this one is doubling down on draconian. And the question for us, as a country is, what are the consequences? What does that mean in people's lives? Well, it means real things. It means less funds for Head Start and early Head Start. It means a big cut to K-12 education. We have a bipartisan piece of legislation saying that Congress is already failing to meet our commitments to special ed. We asked local school jurisdictions to take on the responsibility, it was the right thing to do, to make sure every kid got a good education. That was the right thing to do. But these guys would cut that program. So this is the wrong choice for America. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right that we do close some special interest tax breaks, but we also have about $400 billion in revenue from pro-growth immigration reform which is in this budget, which at least some of our colleagues on the Republican side recognize as a good thing. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that one thing we could do right now to get the economy moving faster would be to pass comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. In fact, they say it will help reduce the deficit by close to $1 trillion over the next 20 years and generate some economic activity. So $400 billion in that revenue is from more economic activity, the kind of pro-growth activity we thought our Republican colleagues liked. I am now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, who has been focused on trying to make sure everybody in America gets a fair shake.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects the priorities and values of the country. This amendment focuses on growing jobs now, making sure that we have a strong economy and making sure we significantly reduce our deficit and debt as a share of our economy over the longer term and does it in a balanced way. It does it by, for example, closing some of the special interest tax breaks that actually perversely encourage American corporations to ship American jobs overseas. We believe we should be in the business of shipping American products overseas, and this budget does invest in jobs right here at home. Unlike the House Republican budget, we don't allow the transportation trust fund to go insolvent later this summer. Unlike the House Republic budget, we do not make deep cuts in our kids' education. We think it is important to build that ladder of opportunity. Unlike the Republican budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and require seniors to pay more if they have high prescription drug costs, and we don't shred the social safety net. Mr. Chairman, I want to also bring to the attention of the body something else that is in here. We advance fund, 100 percent, the Veterans Administration, because what we saw during the unnecessary and unproductive government shutdown last fall was that the closure began to put at risk the benefits that were being paid to our veterans. Now, we already provide for the advance funding of those health care benefits, but what we don't fund in advance are the people who have to administer them to make sure that they are delivered to our veterans on time. So we are very pleased to have a letter here from the DAV and other veterans' groups that strongly support this provision in our budget. It is something that they have been requesting. I just want to read one of the paragraphs: We would like to commend you for presenting an alternate budget proposal that contains a provision for advance appropriations to all VA discretionary programs and services, a critically needed reform that is universally supported by veterans' organizations and is DAV's number one priority. So whether it is veterans, whether it is our kids' education, or whether it is making our commitment to our seniors, we choose to make sure that we fund the priorities of the country and we don't keep off- limits tax preferences for the powerful and the privileged. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No, I do not.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman is free to lead off.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman speaks about the importance of fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility, and we agree. The question we have is: Why do they exempt from the whole practice of fiscal discipline all of these what are called tax expenditures and tax preferences that have been put into the Tax Code many times by very powerful special interests? What does a tax preference mean? It means in many cases that, because somebody has well-heeled lobbyists, he is able to escape having to pay taxes on something that everybody else has to pay for. What our Republican colleagues are saying is they don't want to take away any of those special interest preferences for the purpose of reducing the deficit. They would rather cut deeply into our kids' education. They would rather charge college students more interest on their loans. They would rather increase class sizes in K-12, which is what happens when you cut Title I and special education. They talk about opportunity, but the opportunities that they are protecting are those for the special interests who had their lobbyists do very well for them in Washington. Hey, hands off all of that. We don't want to touch that. But we are coming after everybody else, including, by the way, seniors on Medicare who will immediately see the reopening of the doughnut hole. So if you are a senior with high prescription drug costs, that is going to cost you $1,200 more per year, on average, immediately. And then they begin to phase in in their budget their Medicare voucher program, which will end the Medicare guarantee. This is all about priorities. The interesting thing here is that, despite all the talk about fiscal discipline from our Republican colleagues, it is hands off imposing any fiscal discipline on powerful special interests who have succeeded in getting themselves special deals in the Tax Code. I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has spent a lot of time focusing on these issues.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Brown), a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and someone who is focused on investing in America.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, what we have got here with this particular amendment is more than a doubling down on what was already a bad idea. We heard, actually, from Mr. Rogers, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a Republican Member of Congress, that the Republican version of the budget offered by Mr. Ryan was ``draconian''--draconian because of the impact it has on important investments that have historically helped make our economy grow, make us a world leader, make sure that we can keep our competitive edge in a global economy. The Republican budget coming out of the Budget Committee devastated those important investments. Of course, they didn't close one single special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit, but they decided to cut deeply into investments in our kids' education, everything from early education, to K-12, to college ed. They make no secret about it. They want to charge college students higher interest rates and, at the same time, protect special interest tax breaks. What we have here in the Republican Study Committee's amendment is simply a doubling down on what the chairman of the Republican Appropriations Committee already called draconian. The interesting thing to me, Madam Chairman, is that I would have thought that the Republican Study Committee would have taken a different approach. I would have thought they would have taken an approach that didn't require, as part of their budget, the revenues from the Affordable Care Act, but if you look at their revenue line, it is identical to the revenue line in the House Republican budget, which is identical to the Congressional Budget Office's revenue line, which The Heritage Foundation--no left-leaning group--has said means that these budgets incorporate the tax revenues from the Affordable Care Act. Again, here is what The Heritage Foundation said: Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with ObamaCare. It is what they have said about the House Republican budget's revenue line. This one has the same thing. If they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as they say they will, that revenue line should go down; yet no matter how you cut it, Madam Chairman, the choices remain choices that we do not believe reflect the values and priorities of this country, which are of protecting those special interest tax breaks for very powerful interests while gutting important investments in our future, investments that have been proven historically to make the United States the leading economic power in the world. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.