Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The floor manager mentioned that two times our Republican colleagues had put forth an alternative to the sequester. I know the gentleman knows well that we're in a new Congress, and starting in January, all the bills that were put forward in the last Congress were wiped off the books. They don't have any meaning at this point in time. And this year, since we've been in a new Congress, since the election, the number of times our Republican colleagues have put forth a proposal to prevent that sequester to replace it is zero--zero times in this Congress--when it could actually make a difference. Yet, today, for the fourth time, we're going to go and ask for a vote on our proposal. Now, we're not asking our colleagues to vote for a proposal, although I think that public surveys show the overwhelming majority of the American people would think that our alternative to replacing the sequester is a lot better than the sequester. We're not even asking our colleagues to vote for it. We're just asking for a vote on it. Let's let the people's House do its work. Now, we talked about the deficit. There's no argument about the need to reduce our deficits. We just need to do it in a smart way and in a way that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't cost jobs; and our proposal does have a balanced way. It combines additional, targeted cuts over a period of time with cutting tax loopholes that are in the Tax Code over a period of time. Our Republican colleagues keep talking about how bad the deficit is. We say we agree with you on that, but it apparently isn't bad enough that you would close one single tax loophole in order to reduce the deficit. In fact, that Grover Norquist pledge that's been signed by over 90 percent of our House colleagues says that you promise not to close a single tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. You can't get rid of a tax break for corporate jets. You can't get rid of the special treatment of hedge fund managers under the Tax Code if it's part of an effort to reduce the deficit. How is that serious deficit reduction? So what we've said is we need to do both. We need to eliminate a lot of those tax preferences and tax breaks for big oil companies and others; and we also need to make sensible, targeted cuts in other areas and reduce the deficit in a smart way. The alternative plan that we have proposed that we're asking for a vote on would accomplish the same amount of deficit reduction as the sequester through this calendar year, but do it in a way that does not cost 750,000 American jobs, because we don't do it so deeply, so quickly. That's the difference, and that's why bipartisan commissions have recommended the balanced approach to reducing the deficit. So, again, the numbers for this year, which is the only thing that's relevant in terms of congressional action, is that there has been zero effort, zero times that our colleagues have brought to the floor a proposal to replace sequester. We're now asking our fourth time this afternoon simply to have a vote. I hope that we can finally get one, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I pointed out earlier, but I think it bears emphasis, about 1 month ago we passed a virtually identical provision. So why are we back here on the floor of this House, again without opposition? I think everybody in this House voted to do this calculation and have it put on the books. So why we are here one month later when the sequester just kicked in, doing something that we already did, rather than focusing on the issue at hand, I think is a mystery to the American people. Folks who just read from letters they got and from constituents, I think those constituents are going to be asking, why are you doing now what you did 30 days ago when we have got all these other burning issues on our plate right now, and at a time when we are asking for a vote on a plan to replace the sequester in a balanced way for the fourth time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Listening to this debate on the floor you might think that this bill did something to reduce the deficit and the debt. Just in case anyone is confused, it does nothing to reduce the deficit and debt. It does ask for a calculation, which we agree with. In fact, the gentlelady just did the calculation herself, which begs the question why you need to go through a bill to get somebody to do the calculation. In fact, this calculation changes, because as the gentleman and all of us have said, the deficit goes up. That number changes every day, and so you have got to do it every day. The point is, we passed this a month ago. There is no objection to doing a calculation. But this bill does nothing, nothing to reduce the deficit. In fact, it is running up the deficit as we spend time, taxpayer time, right here on the floor of the House while we continue to ask for a vote, up or down vote, on our plan to replace the sequester so that we don't lose 750,000 American jobs. Today will be the fourth time we have asked for this. Our Republican colleagues have not taken any action in this Congress, not one step, nothing, to replace the sequester. That is what we should be dealing with. Not a bill that we passed a month ago, not a bill that the gentlelady did a calculation on the floor to achieve the result. Let's focus on jobs and reducing the deficit in a smart way, by targeting spending cuts in a smart way, but also getting rid of all those tax breaks that our colleagues seem so wedded to keeping in place. With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding the 52nd anniversary of the Peace Corps to recognize the service, sacrifice and commitment of the men and women who devote a portion of their lives to the task of helping to strengthen the ties of friendship and understanding between the people of United States and others around the world. These cultural ambassadors embody the legacy of service that is the foundation of this nation's image abroad. Since 1961, more than 210,000 volunteers have served in 193 countries around the world. Their efforts in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere have made significant and lasting contributions in the areas of agriculture, business development, education, health, and youth development among others. I know firsthand of the long-lasting benefits of the good work of the Peace Corps. My father served in the Navy and then went on to become a United States Foreign Service officer, proudly representing America in places like Turkey and India and Pakistan, where I was born. I learned a lot about the world as a child in those places, but I also learned a lot about America. One memory of those years stands out. It was in the early 1970s, and I had just turned 14. One day, I traveled with my parents to a tiny remote village in Sri Lanka. There, I walked into a family's small hut and as my eyes adjusted to the light, I noticed, hanging on the wall, a portrait of President John F. Kennedy. It was 10 years after he had been in the White House and half a world away from our country, but for these villagers it represented the America that had sent Peace Corps volunteers to help them. It represented the America they looked to as a land of opportunity and as a force for good and justice around the world. That portrait of our president represented an America that was a beacon of hope. As we celebrate the fifty-second anniversary of the Peace Corps, let us salute the men and women who helped bring the best of America to the people of the world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this comprehensive Violence Against Women Act reauthorization that passed the Senate by an overwhelming 78-22 bipartisan majority. Today is a victory for America's women--and for the possibility of bipartisanship on important matters before the U.S. Congress. This reauthorization strengthens the Violence Against Women Act by protecting all victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking. It authorizes vital funding for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute these abuses, and it includes provisions to make college campuses safer and to reduce the current rape kit backlog. Madam Speaker, the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act is endorsed by over 1300 organizations nationwide and was supported by every Democrat, every woman senator, and a majority of Senate Republicans. We should enact it without any further delay. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank Ranking Member Slaughter. I hope tomorrow this House will finally have a chance to vote on the bipartisan Senate bill to prevent violence against women. I hope tomorrow we will also have a chance to vote on a proposal that we've now put forward three times this year to replace the sequester. Unfortunately, the rule reported out of the House Rules Committee denies us that opportunity. So let's just remind people what will happen starting March 1. Starting March 1, if this House does not take action to replace the sequester, we will lose 750,000 American jobs between March 1 and the end of this year. Those are not my numbers; those are not President Obama's numbers; those are the numbers from the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office--750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of this year if we don't replace the sequester. This majority in this House has not taken any action this year in this Congress to prevent that sequester from happening beginning Friday, not one step. We have now asked three times for the opportunity to vote on our alternative. So what's our alternative, Mr. Speaker? Our alternative would replace the sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and revenue generated by closing tax loopholes and tax preferences that benefit the very wealthy. So very specifically--because it's a concrete proposal--we would get rid of the direct payments that go to agribusinesses, something that used to have bipartisan support because that's an unnecessary subsidy that has outlived its purpose. So that's a cut. We also say we no longer need taxpayer subsidies for the big oil companies. Guess what? That's an idea that was proposed by President Bush who said taxpayers should no longer be giving these big breaks to big oil companies; they don't need that extra taxpayer incentive in order to keep producing oil and making record profits. So we do that. Then we say to folks who are making $2 million a year that we're going to limit the number of preferences you can take. We're going to limit the number of tax breaks that you take that allow you to effectively pay a lower rate than the people who work for you. So if you're making $2 million or more per year, we say you should pay an effective tax rate of 30 percent.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If you take that balanced combination of targeted cuts and the elimination of tax breaks that disproportionately benefit very wealthy people, guess what happens? You get the same deficit reduction over the budget window, so you reduce the deficit by the same amount as you would get if you allow the sequester to take place throughout this year, but you do it in a way that does not lose 750,000 American jobs. You do it in a way that does not cause disruption at our airports; in a way that does not cause disruption to our food safety system; in a way that does not cause disruption to the nurses who are caring for our veterans in military hospitals and veterans hospitals around this country; and in a way that does not disrupt our military operations. So, Mr. Speaker, we just have a simple question: Why is it that as we gather here Wednesday, we're denied the opportunity to even have a vote on this alternative, this balanced alternative, to prevent the loss of 750,000 American jobs? We're not asking Members of this House to vote for our alternative, although we think it's a good one and would urge them to do so. We're simply asking that in the people's House we have a vote on an alternative to something that will create these great job losses and that great disruption. I think the American people are going to ask themselves why we were not even granted that opportunity with less than 3 days to go before we hit that across-the-board sequester, which is just Washington-speak for massive job loss and massive economic disruption. In addition to the job loss, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, it will cause one-third less economic output in the United States of America in this year at a time when the economy remains very fragile. So I ask, finally, Mr. Speaker, give us that opportunity at least to vote so people have a choice to prevent the sequester. I thank the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just three numbers: 750,000 fewer American jobs, cutting growth in GDP by one-third, not economic output but growth in GDP by one-third. That's one number. The second number: three, the number of times we've tried to get a vote on this. The third number: zero, the number of times our Republican colleagues this year have tried to resolve the sequester issue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 65 and to thank Representatives Royce, Engel and Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership on this important issue and for working together to bring this bipartisan resolution to the floor today. H. Res. 65 condemns the government of North Korea for its flagrant and repeated violations of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, for its repeated provocations that threaten international peace and for its test of a nuclear device on February 12, 2013. Since 2006, the U.N. Security Council has passed three resolutions condemning North Korea for its illegal missile tests, most recently the resolution passed last month. Then, on Tuesday, in further defiance of U.N. resolutions, the North Korean government detonated an underground nuclear device. Taken together, these events are clear indications of North Korea's flagrant disregard for international law, regional stability and for the welfare of its own people. Instead of feeding the millions of North Koreans who are starving, the government chooses to squander what little resources it possesses on an illegal nuclear weapons program. Its actions are reckless and dangerous and the international community cannot stand by silently as it continues to oppress its people to deny their human rights and political liberties and to permit them to suffer material deprivation just so that they can pursue a nuclear weapons program at their expense. I stand with my colleagues in condemnation of the government of North Korea for its reckless disregard for international law, for threat its actions pose to the stability of the region and for its contempt for the welfare of its own people. And I call on China, as a party of the Six-Party Talks and the closest ally of North Korea, to use its considerable influence to encourage the North Koreans to abandon their illegal nuclear weapons program.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent, Linda Levine, on her more than 30 years of outstanding service to our nation. Ms. Levine, who is retiring on February 28, 2013, has served as a Specialist in Labor Economics for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). She is the model of a dedicated public servant. Linda received a Bachelor's of Science degree in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell University and a Master's degree in Labor and Industrial Relations from Michigan State University. Linda began her career in federal service in 1976 as a labor economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, followed by her service as a research economist at the Communications Workers of America. Linda joined the Congressional Research Service in 1982, where she has worked for more than 30 years. During that time, Linda assisted Congress with dozens of reports, countless memoranda, and numerous consultations with Congressional staff and Members of Congress. Linda also served as Section Head of the Labor and Industries Section at CRS. Linda's first report at CRS, entitled ``The Impact of Defense Spending on Employment,'' was as relevant then as it is today. Her last report traces changes in the real value of the minimum wage. In between, Linda drafted analyses on older workers, younger workers, women in the labor force, pay equity, unemployment, job growth, and inequality. She also wrote reports on leave benefits, worker safety, green jobs, offshoring, the chained CPI, immigration policy, and many other subjects. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Linda Levine and in extending our nation's gratitude to her for her honorable and productive service. I know that we will all miss her significant contributions to the important labor economic issues of our country and wish her well in the years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to penalize hardworking federal employees who are doing our nation's business. I support extending the freeze on Congressional pay, but there is no reason we should block federal civil servants from receiving a partial COLA of a \1/2\ of 1 percent. Federal workers have already contributed $103 billion toward lowering our deficit through pay freezes and increases in their retirement contributions. A full pay freeze for a third year in a row would take another $11 billion out of the pockets of these dedicated public servants. And let's be clear: this bill does not cut spending by one dime because it does not change the overall spending caps. As a result, these dollars will be spent elsewhere in the budget. So while this bill does nothing to reduce the deficit, it does punish people doing essential work for our country. It punishes: Nurses caring for our wounded warriors; the FBI agents who helped rescue the young boy in Alabama; air traffic controllers who keep our skies safe to fly; scientists doing lifesaving medical research; meat and food inspectors who keep our food safe; the individuals who helped get the intelligence to track down Osama bin Laden; and the individuals who keep our border safe, ensure Social Security payments arrive on time, and so many others who do the work of America. All that is bad enough. At the same time, this bill does nothing to avoid the hit to the economy and jobs that will begin on March 1, just over two weeks from today. I want everyone to remember two numbers. First, 750,000. That is the number of jobs that will be lost between March 1 and the end of the year if we don't stop the sequester. This number doesn't come from me; it comes from the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office, CBO. That job loss is equal to wiping out all the job gains from October 1 of last year through last month--5 months--of job gains. Additionally, the sequester will cut economic growth this year one-third. So, we should prevent this needless action from taking place. And House Democrats have repeatedly offered a plan to do so. The second number to remember is 4. That is the number of times Democrats have tried to get a vote on our plan to replace the sequester with the same amount of long term deficit reduction without hurting jobs or the economy. Our Republicans colleagues have not lifted a finger in the 113th Congress to prevent these impending job losses. In fact, Tea Party Republicans like Senator Rand Paul are cheering for this job cleaver to come down. Our plan would replace the $120 billion sequester for the remainder of the year, with an equal amount of long-term deficit reduction without harming jobs and disrupting the economy. The key elements of our plan are as follows: cut direct payment subsidies to agribusiness by $29 billion; cut Big Oil tax subsidies by $38 billion; implement the Buffet Rule, which brings in $54 billion in revenue. That totals $121 billion of offsetting deficit reduction that won't hurt the economy or kill jobs. So instead of penalizing hard working federal employees, let's focus on preventing the loss of 750,000 American jobs and let's pass the Stop the Sequester Job Loss Act now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join President Obama and concerned citizens around the world to say it is high time we move forward on addressing climate change. As President Obama said in his State of the Union address: ``We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science--and act before it's too late. `` This weekend, tens of thousands of people--including 100 buses from over 30 states--will be traveling to Washington, DC to participate in Sunday's Forward on Climate Rally to demonstrate their support for action on climate change. My home state of Maryland knows all too well the devastating effects of extreme weather events, and the threat that coastal flooding and sea level rise present to our coastal communities. In that regard, I'm proud that Maryland is tackling this issue head on by committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 2006 levels by 2020. In addition to restoring a healthy climate, this initiative will boost economic growth, create jobs and save consumers money. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Forward on Climate Rally to the nation's capital, and I stand with concerned citizens from across the country who say the time is now to address climate change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, for those Members of this body who were not focused on this debate yesterday, let's make a couple of things clear. The President will introduce a budget, he is going to submit a budget, and he has submitted a budget every year. Our Republican colleagues don't like his budget because he takes a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, meaning that in addition to cuts, he also calls for additional revenue from taking away special tax breaks for special interests. That's number one. Number two, what this bill does is, number one, require the President to submit his budget in a certain way; and number two, it criticizes the President for submitting his budget late. Again, for those who weren't part of the debate yesterday, the reason the President's budget is late is because we had to pass the fiscal cliff agreement. We didn't get that done until January 2. And I have to say, Madam Chairman, we got it done despite the overwhelming opposition of House Republicans. We were pleased to get the overwhelming support of Senate Republicans, but House Republicans continue to take the position that they were prepared to go over the fiscal cliff in order to protect tax breaks for very wealthy people. That's why the President's budget is late, because as any American family knows, if you don't know what revenue is coming in, you can't put together your household budget. We didn't know what kind of revenue was coming in until January 2. So, with that, Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, as we debated yesterday, the bill before us is unfortunately nothing more than a political gimmick at a time when we're facing huge issues with respect to jobs and the economy. It's very unfortunate that we did not have an opportunity to vote on an amendment that we proposed to replace the sequester--which is now less than a month away and which will do grave economic harm--our proposal to replace that sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and revenue from closing loopholes. But in this body, which says it wants to be transparent in the people's House, we were denied an opportunity to take a vote on something that's very important to the American people, as opposed to playing the political games we've been playing with this bill. With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the Representative from San Francisco and the daughter of Baltimore, the home of the Super Bowl champions, the Ravens.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I support this amendment because this is something we all want to see happen and which the President himself has indicated he wants to see happen. In the last fiscal year budget, in fact, the President, through OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, submitted something called Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings to be considered by the Congress and the executive branch; and he also asked that legislation be submitted on his behalf to help give him more authority to reorganize some of these government agencies, which was introduced during the last Congress by Mr. Barrow, who may well intend to reintroduce that. Madam Chairman, these are things I think we all would like to see, greater efficiencies that help save money in a smart way. The President has indicated not only his intention but specific proposals to do so, and so we do not object. In fact, I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is entitled the PLAN Act. What we really need is a plan to avoid the sequester, these across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that are going to take place on March 1, which we all know are going to hurt jobs and the economy. We just heard from the Republican leader. Last September, he made a very good point on the floor of this House. He said that if you allow those sequester cuts to take place, you're going to see more than 200,000 jobs lost just in the State of Virginia just in the defense sector. The across-the-board cuts are going to hurt jobs in defense, but they're also going to hurt other jobs as well as important national efforts, whether it's the FBI, whether it's border security, or whether it's medical research at the National Institutes of Health. All those things are going to be cut. Now, the majority leader just made the point that when the American people are asked what their number one priority is, it's jobs and the economy. So why aren't we doing something about jobs and the economy? Why did the Republican leadership deny us an opportunity just to have a vote on a plan, a plan to prevent that sequester from taking place in less than a month, a plan that would replace that sequester with a mix of long-term, targeted cuts as well as revenues from, for example, getting rid of the taxpayer subsidies for the Big Oil companies? That's the real plan we need, and yet we haven't seen any plan from our Republican colleagues in this 113th Congress. So, let's focus on what really is important to the American people. The deficit is, of course, important to the American people. As the Republican leader said, it ranked number two. There's no debate there. The issue all along has been not whether we reduce the deficit but how we do it, making sure, number one, we don't do it in a way that hurts the economy, like some of the austerity plans in Europe, which apparently our Republican colleagues would like us to copy. That hurt the economy. We saw it didn't work in the U.K., and we believe we need to reduce the deficit in a balanced way--cuts but also revenue, by asking very wealthy people to contribute a little bit more and by closing those tax breaks that we heard about from the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate all last fall. Those tax breaks are still out there. We propose to eliminate some of those for the purpose of reducing the deficit in a balanced way. That's the plan we need. That's the plan we've offered. Unfortunately, that's the plan we haven't had a chance to even get a vote on. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, even though I will not ultimately oppose the amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I think it's important to remind our colleagues that as part of the Budget Control Act and other measures we took over the last several years, we have already cut $1.5 trillion over the 10-year budget period by placing a cap on spending. The President has been very clear, as have Democrats in the Congress. We understand we've got to make some important cuts. We did $1.5 trillion. We can do more. In fact, the substitute amendment that I proposed would eliminate these direct payments for agribusinesses, over $29 billion in unnecessary subsidies. The question isn't whether we should do cuts. Yes, we should do them. We should do them in a smart way and not in an across-the-board way. But we should also generate revenue by closing the tax loopholes to reduce the deficit. We heard again from our Republican colleagues throughout the last Presidential campaign about all these tax breaks that benefit very wealthy people. Let's close them to help reduce the deficit, and that's exactly what our substitute would do to help replace the sequester. I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to someone who knows these issues well, a terrific new Member of Congress from the State of Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, we've heard a number of the last speakers complain about the fact that the President's budget will be a little late this year. Again, for the new Members joining us--and we welcome all of the new Members, those being Republicans and Democrats--in the last session of Congress, we were here until January 2 trying to put together an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. That was the President's priority--to make sure that we didn't hurt jobs and the economy by going over the fiscal cliff. The overwhelming majority of our Republican colleagues in this House voted against that plan because they were more focused on protecting tax breaks for very wealthy individuals than about protecting jobs and the economy. That's their choice. Their Senate Republican colleagues made a different choice, but our House Republican colleagues can make the choice that they want. Now, with respect to the budget, the President will submit a budget, and our House Republican colleagues can reject it or do what they want with it. The issue is not whether he'll submit a budget. He will. The issue is whether or not we would dictate to the President what the form of his budget should take, and that is wrong. It is also a little curious to hear this newfound support for these sort of balanced budgets from our Republican colleagues. I would just remind everybody that the last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the Clinton administration. Why? Because, in addition to economic growth, they asked the American people to contribute a little bit more in terms of tax revenue. The Bush administration came in and immediately squandered those surpluses. I think it's important to know that, since 1950, we've had a balanced budget on only eight occasions, unfortunately. The last time we had a Republican President who balanced his budget without inheriting it from a Democratic President was Dwight Eisenhower. So we are pleased that our Republican colleagues are joining us in trying to get back to fiscal responsibility. We see reducing the deficit as a very important part of that, but we disagree that we should do it by cutting important commitments we've made to seniors, by slashing our investment in our kids' educations, by cutting science and research and things that help power our economy and make us competitive. We think that's the wrong approach. We need a balanced approach that combines cuts with revenues from closing these tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. That's the kind of plan we need. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, again, just to put all this into perspective, I appreciate the sort of newfound vigor with which our Republican colleagues are approaching this issue. I would just remind them that, in the budget they brought to the floor in the last 2 years, it did not balance, according to the CBO, until 2040. Even then, if you read what the Congressional Budget Office said, it wasn't as a result of the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of their policies; it was simply based on assumptions that our Republican colleagues provided to the CBO. So the real question here is: How do we reduce our deficits in a way that does not hurt the economy right now but does make sure that, as the economy improves, public spending and deficit spending does not squeeze out private investment? Actually, for the last couple of years, the problem has been the opposite. We have seen less private investment, and so the moneys the Federal Government has spent have been very important to helping the economy from going into free fall. But there's no doubt that we have to come up with a balanced approach to dealing with this issue in the outyears, and that's where the debate lies, in how we should do that. And again, our Republican colleagues have said ``no'' to the balanced approach; they've said ``no'' to the plan that we offered to prevent the sequester; and they didn't say ``no,'' they wouldn't even allow a vote on the plan we offered to prevent the sequester that's going to hit on March 1 and which our Republican colleagues in statement after statement on this floor have said is going to hurt the economy, and which we know from the last quarter's economic report is already hurting the economy just because businesses are anticipating the possibility of these across-the-board cuts. So that's the plan that we should be focused on. That's the plan that helps the economy, that will help save jobs. And it's just unfortunate that we've been denied an opportunity in the people's House to even have a vote on the one plan that's been submitted in this Congress, in this House, to prevent those job losses and prevent harm being done to our economy. So I would hope, Madam Chairman, that we put aside this political gimmick. The President will submit a budget. Our Republican colleagues can do with it whatever they want, but let's put aside the political games and focus on jobs and the economy and let's have a vote on the plan that we have introduced to prevent that sequester from taking place and prevent the economic damage that it would do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of my constituent William J. (Bill) Moore, Trial Attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, and to congratulate him on his retirement after 36 years of service at the CPSC. Bill was born in New Jersey and has lived in Maryland most of his life. He began his career at the CPSC in 1974 as a law clerk while studying at American University's Washington College of Law and became one of CPSC's treasured compliance attorneys. Bill worked chiefly in the Office of Compliance and Administrative Litigation and, most recently, in the Division of Compliance within the Office of the General Counsel. Over the course of his long and distinguished career, he helped to negotiate numerous major product recalls in a variety of product categories, including durable infant goods, toys, furnaces, electrical appliances, and outdoor equipment. He also served as lead counsel in some of the Commission's most prominent corrective action litigations, including those on gas valves, worm probes, BB guns, and toasters. As an attorney working at the Commission shortly after its inception, Bill was instrumental in ensuring the enforcement of the newly-drafted safety regulations. When the agency banned refuse bins that were tipping over, pinning down, and killing children who were playing around them, Bill was part of the team that travelled the country, engaging in enforcement litigation to have the unstable bins removed from public use. He later worked with the Commission's Office of Compliance to lay the groundwork that led to the guidance to eliminate soft bedding in cribs and to have babies placed on their backs for safe sleep. Bill was also instrumental in drafting the certification requirements for bicycle helmet and cigarette lighter regulations. During his tenure, Bill negotiated over $16 million in civil penalty fines, the highest cumulative amount of civil penalty fines in the agency's history. Bill has played a major role in protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury posed by consumer products. He has provided guidance to other attorneys and compliance staff as they pursue legal strategies against manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of dangerously defective and hazardous products. Over the years, he received many well-deserved distinguished and meritorious awards for his outstanding work. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bill Moore and in extending our nation's gratitude to him for his honorable and productive service.