Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Schrader, and his colleagues for offering this amendment. I support the overall framework of Simpson-Bowles. I've said that many times. If you look at the balance in Simpson-Bowles between the cuts and the revenue, it's something, I think, that is the model that we should be using in this body. And I do want to submit for the Record an analysis that was done by the Center For Budget Policy Priorities that shows exactly what that breakdown would be. I don't support every single recommendation within Simpson-Bowles, but I think we have an obligation, if we don't like one of their cuts, to come up with an alternative cut. If we don't like their revenue, we should come up with alternative revenue. But what the Simpson-Bowles proposal does is it creates a framework saying that we need to take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. I was listening to my friend, Mr. Price, explaining his opposition to this. He didn't want to impose requirements on the President; simply ask the President to consider these proposals. And as the President himself has said, he has incorporated many of the proposals from Simpson-Bowles into his own budget, the ones he submitted last year and the one that he will submit this year. So I support the framework, not every recommendation, but the overall framework. Summary of Updated Bowles-Simpson Estimates To assess Bowles-Simpson today so that policymakers can compare it with other plans, one must look at the Bowles- Simpson savings over 2013-2022, relative to a current policy baseline. One must also account for the $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts that policymakers have since enacted. When that is done, the results show that:

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I will not use all the time. As I said, what this amendment requests is information that, in fact, the President already provides as part of the budget submission. I indicated I have in my hand that information from the last fiscal year's budget. I do think that in pursuit of transparency it's important to point out that when the President was first sworn in his first term, before he put his hand on the Bible, he faced a projected deficit of well over $1 trillion--a record deficit at that time. As we saw from the Congressional Budget Office in their report just the other day, that deficit is now coming down. As the economy has improved and as the President's policies have begun to take shape, that deficit is on its way down. Is it far enough down? No. And there's a legitimate debate as to the best way to get there, but as part of that debate, certainly the more information, the better. And as I indicated, this information that is being requested is, in fact, already provided to the Congress. So we will not oppose it. In fact, I would support the amendment. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Again, what this amendment does is ask the President, when he submits the budget, to provide certain information about mandatory spending and means-tested spending. In fact, the President already does this in his budget. I have in my hand, in fact, the budget for fiscal year 2013--that's the current fiscal year that we're in now--historical tables that were submitted by the President as part of that budget submission. The categories include mandatory spending, and within mandatory spending they break it down: Social Security deposit insurance, means-tested entitlements, and others. So this is information that the President already provides as part of the budget process. I'm happy to support him continuing to do that. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think it is very useful to let everybody in the country know exactly what the debt and deficit will be on a per capita basis. We in Congress of course can do the math. I think it's no problem asking the President to run that calculation as well. Again, I want to emphasize the fact that there's agreement on reducing the deficit; the real differences here are over how we do it. But regardless of how you want to do it, I think the gentleman has offered a useful amendment. The more information for the American people, the better, and we will not object and in fact support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That's my understanding, too. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple comments which are 100 percent accurate, just so people watching this can understand what we're all talking about, since there's a lot of confusion. The President is going to submit a budget. He has submitted a budget every year of his 4 years. Our Republican colleagues don't like the budgets that he submits, but they're free to look at them. They're transparent. They're on the Internet. The President was late this year because we worked frantically to avoid the fiscal cliff and reach an agreement on January 2. You need to know what your revenues are going to be before you can put together a budget, number one. Number two, the House can take whatever action it wants on the President's budget. You can tell the people you don't like it and you can have your own alternative, as you will. But he's going to submit a budget that's transparent, which is why we shouldn't be wasting time talking about this on the floor of the House when in less than 1 month we're going to see these across-the-board meat-ax cuts take place that our Republican colleagues themselves have acknowledged are going to hurt jobs and hurt the economy, which is why we proposed an alternative, a substitute to prevent those meat-ax cuts from taking place. And, unfortunately, our colleagues who keep saying they want an open and transparent process, put the gavel down and said, no, that this House of Representatives isn't going to have a chance to vote on something to prevent the across-the-board sequester cuts. Instead, they just want to keep on whistling by this problem. They haven't taken it up in this Congress. So I urge my colleagues to get serious, come back with a plan like ours and that will demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, that we're serious. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire, as I understand, we're doing half of the total time tomorrow. Would the chairman know how much time remains today on each side?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

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

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There's no doubt that it's a priority of the American people, 72 percent of the American people, to reduce the deficit. We need to reduce the deficit. In fact, in the last election, both candidates talked about their plans for how to reduce that deficit in a smart and measured way. The American people spoke, and they said they preferred the balanced approach that the President has laid out that includes a combination of cuts. And, by the way, we did more than $1.5 trillion of cuts through the combination of the Budget Control Act and the supplementals in the last 2 or 3 years. We've already done that. We need to keep making more cuts. And, in fact, our substitute proposal includes additional cuts. But in the last election, the American people also said that we should close some of these tax breaks for special interests and very wealthy people. And yet our Republican colleagues have taken the position, the ironclad position, that you can't close or eliminate one of those tax breaks that their Presidential candidate and Vice Presidential candidate talked about if you want to use that for the purpose of reducing the deficit. You can't do it. So, yes, we need to reduce the deficit. The President has a plan to do it. He just doesn't do it the way our Republican colleagues would do it, which is by whacking Social Security and Medicaid, and by shortchanging important investments in our education and in our kids' future. So, yes, reduce the deficit, but let's do it in a sensible way. And the President has the prerogative of getting to put forward his budget the way he would like to present it to Congress, and then Congress can do its work however it wants. With that, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague from Maryland, and someone who has been very focused on reducing our deficits in a responsible way, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just have to say to my colleagues that, in looking at this bill, it represents exactly what the American people hate most about this body and this Congress. It's a political gimmick that does absolutely nothing to help create jobs. It does nothing to help boost economic growth. If you read the bill, it is another finger-pointing exercise: blaming the President for the late submission of the 2014 budget and demanding not that the President submit a budget--the President is going to submit a budget--but that he submit it in a form dictated by House Republicans rather than dictated by current law. Now, our Republican colleagues know very well why the President's 2014 budget is late. It's late because we had a big debate in this country over how to avoid the fiscal cliff, and it wasn't until January 2 that this House and the Senate were able to resolve that issue. If we'd gone over the fiscal cliff, it would have created huge economic problems. It would have created a huge contraction. It would have created a huge loss of jobs. Now, even though a majority of Republican Senators voted for the agreement to prevent us from going over that fiscal cliff, our House Republican colleagues argued against it and against it, and at the end of the day, they were prepared to let the economy go over that cliff in order to protect tax breaks for very wealthy people. A great majority of our Republican colleagues here in the House voted against that fiscal agreement, but we got it done despite that fact. As a result, the economy has continued to move. Now we need to work to make it move faster, but this bill does absolutely nothing to help do that. That's why the budget is a little late, because most Americans know that, unless you know both what your expenditures are going to be and your revenues, you can't submit a budget, and we didn't know until January 2 what the revenue number would be going forward. By the way, Mr. Chairman, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee have also been delayed in presenting their backgrounds, which have just come out today but were delayed from when they had planned to do it, and it was because of that very reason. What's really a shame is that here we are on the floor of the House, debating this gimmick, when we should be doing things to help the economy and help grow jobs. On March 1, less than 1 month from today, we're going to see these automatic across-the-board, meat-ax cuts take place to both defense and non-defense. Now, those across-the-board cuts are going to do great damage to jobs and the economy. You don't have to take my word for it. Here are the words of the Republican House leader, Mr. Cantor, just a few months ago: ``Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level up to 9 percent, setting back any progress the economy has made.'' According to a study which he referred to, ``The jobs of more than 200,000 Virginians in my home State are on the line.'' And that's just jobs in Virginia. He was just talking about jobs lost from the defense cuts. If we don't act to replace the sequester, you're going to see jobs lost around the country. In fact, we're already seeing what would happen from even the threat of the sequester, because, in the last quarter, we saw the economy slowing. Many analysts have said it's because of the fear of these across-the-board cuts--and not just many analysts. The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, said this in referring to the last quarter economic report: ``This is just the first indicator of the extraordinary economic damage defense cuts will do.'' Mr. McKeon is right. So why are we spending our time today on a bill that doesn't address that at all? We have not in this Congress, the 113th Congress, had any debate on any measure to replace the sequester--our Republican colleagues haven't brought that to the floor--but it gets worse. Even though our Republican colleagues haven't brought their proposal to the floor of this House to replace the sequester in this Congress, we presented an alternative to the Rules Committee to replace the sequester and to do it in a balanced way, and we were denied an opportunity to have an up- or-down vote here in this Chamber today on that proposal to replace the sequester for the remainder of this fiscal year so that we would avoid those across-the-board, meat-ax cuts and avoid the job losses that both Mr. Cantor and Mr. McKeon talked about. We had a proposal to avoid all that--not even a vote today--and we proposed to do it in a balanced way, Mr. Chairman: to make some cuts to some of the big agriculture subsidies' direct payments, also with some revenue by closing taxpayer breaks for the big oil companies. Our Republican colleagues continue to stick to the position that they won't close one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit, not one. They conceded in the last election that very wealthy individuals benefit from those tax breaks disproportionately, but they don't want to eliminate one of them for the purpose of reducing the deficit in a balanced way, combined with additional spending cuts, which is what our substitute amendment would do. It's important for the people to know that we didn't have a chance to vote on it. So, Mr. Chairman, it's a sad reflection on this body that we are here debating a meaningless political action and ignoring the real work of the American people in this country to deal with the sequester in a balanced way and to prevent the job losses which Republican Members of this Congress have themselves said are on the horizon if we don't take that action. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, who said it exactly right. This unfortunately is another political gimmick we've seen from our Republican colleagues, and it is exactly why the American people hate this Congress so much. Rather than doing something to create jobs, rather than doing something to help support the economy, this does absolutely nothing other than point fingers at the President because his budget is a little late and then tell the President that he has to submit a budget that meets the Republican requirements rather than what we've done with every other President, which gives them the ability to present the budget they like. With respect to the delay, our Republican colleagues know very well what the cause of that delay was. The cause of the delay was we were working very hard to try and avoid the fiscal cliff, which would have hurt jobs and the economy. I'm not surprised some of our Republican House colleagues have forgotten about that because they overwhelmingly voted against the fiscal cliff agreement, which by the way was supported by the overwhelming majority of Senate Republicans. But here in the House, Republicans in great numbers said that they would rather risk the economy and risk jobs than ask the very wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more. That's why the fiscal cliff agreement took so long. We didn't get it done until January 2. I would hope my colleagues on the Budget Committee know, if you're putting together a budget, you need to know what you're spending, but you also need to know what your revenues are. Until we were able to get that agreement, the President didn't know what the revenues were. Nonpartisan groups, like the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax, were also delayed in their assessments. These are nonpartisan groups. Now, the shame of it is, instead of playing these political games, we should do what my colleagues have said we should do in that we should be focused on avoiding the sequester--the meat-ax, across-the-board cuts. This House has taken no action in this Congress, in this 113th Congress, to deal with that, so we on the Democratic side said, Hey, let's give our Members an opportunity to vote on something to replace the sequester and to do it in a balanced way so that we don't hurt the economy and so that we don't put jobs at risk. We brought a substitute amendment to the Rules Committee that would have prevented those across-the-board cuts, that would have replaced them with balanced and sensible alternatives like, for example, eliminating direct payments in agricultural subsidies, like getting rid of the taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies, that we would replace the across-the-board, meat-ax cuts, which would do great harm to our economy, with those sensible measures. The response from our Republican colleagues: You don't get a vote. You don't get a vote. They rushed to the floor a measure that hadn't had a single hearing, that did not go through the regular order; and in keeping with that philosophy, we don't even get a vote on something that is important to the American people, which is to replace the across-the-board sequester, which we know is going to hurt jobs because we just heard from the last quarter economic report that even the fear of those across-the-board cuts was having a damaging impact on the economy, even the fear of it. Now, within less than a month, it's going to happen, and here we're talking about a political gimmick bill instead of something that does something real, and we are not even allowed a chance to vote on a proposal to replace the sequester. Vote against it if you want. Vote against it. That's the way the democratic process works, but allow this House to work its will. When this House worked its will, we were able to get a fiscal agreement passed and were able to avoid going over the cliff and hurting the economy. Let's do the same thing now. Let's just have a vote, up or down, on the merits of a substitute proposal rather than playing games with this very unfortunate proposal that does nothing but play politics.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court recognized a woman's right to privacy and protected her freedom to make her own reproductive decisions. With the support of a majority of Americans, my colleagues and I will continue to defend this right and oppose efforts to interfere in a decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor. Let's work together to ensure quality, affordable health care, reduce unplanned pregnancies, and expand assistance to pregnant women and options for adoption.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. This resolution contains some good news, but lots of bad news for the American people. The good news is that our congressional Republican colleagues have finally recognized that America must pay its bills and meet its financial obligations without condition. The bad news is they only want to do that for 3 months. Just read the title: To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19. If it's a good idea to maintain the obligations of the U.S. Government between now and May 19, it sure is a good idea to make sure that we meet the obligations of the U.S. Government beyond that. And by setting up what amounts to another fiscal cliff, all our Republican colleagues are doing is prolonging economic uncertainty. For the last 2 years, we've heard from our Republican colleagues that economic uncertainty is bad for the economy. Guess what? It is. Yet that's exactly what you're doing, another big dose of economic uncertainty. This is a political effort simply to increase their negotiating strategy leverage 3 months from now at the expense of jobs in the economy and the American people. How do we know it's at the expense of jobs in the economy? Because we saw what happened in August of 2011. As the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee said, it was the worst month in terms of jobs. We saw our credit rating downgraded, and both GAO and the Bipartisan Policy Center have said it cost the taxpayers over $1 billion. So that's all we're doing right now, another dose of uncertainty. To my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, yes, we need budgets; yes, we need to reduce our long-term deficits. That's never been the issue. The issue is how. We believe we've got to make targeted cuts in reforms, but we also believe we need to eliminate a lot of the tax breaks and loopholes that we heard a lot from our colleagues about in order to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. If you don't do that, you sock it to everybody else in the country. Let's pass a balanced approach to reducing our deficit, and not one that takes it out at the expense of our kids and our seniors.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, today we meet to consider the second and third tranches of disaster assistance for the families suffering from the effects of Hurricane Sandy. In the dying days of the 112th Congress, we passed legislation granting FEMA the authority to increase by up to $9.7 billion its borrowing so that the agency could continue paying homeowners insurance claims associated with the hurricane. Then, rather than address the remaining pressing concerns of the families suffering because of Sandy, the Republican Leadership gaveled the House into adjournment. We return today, months after Sandy struck to finish the job. Today the House considers two pieces of legislation that when combined will provide more than $50 billion in assistance to those areas hit by Sandy. I stand in support of H.R. 152 and the amendment offered by Rep. Frelinghuysen. H.R. 152 provides $17 billion in assistance to the lead agencies responsible for reconstruction efforts including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation. The bill also increases the role of the Government Accountability Office in monitoring the assistance in the bill. Representative Frelinghuysen's amendment covers the same areas as H.R. 152 while increasing the time lines associated with funding to provide for longer-term support. These measures, together with the bill passed last Congress to increase FEMA borrowing authority and the Sandy disaster assistance streamlining bill passed by the House yesterday finally finishes the work Congress should have completed months ago. With the passage of H.R. 152 and the Frelinghuysen amendment, the families whose lives were turned upside down by the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy will finally have access to the resources they will need to rebuild.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of HR 41, a measure to increase by $9.7 billion the borrowing authority of the National Flood Insurance Program, enabling the program to continue paying the tens of thousands of claims related to the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy. Across this country from the Appalachians to the Great Lakes to northern coast of Maine, dozens of people have lost their lives, the homes of thousands of families were destroyed and millions of people have suffered from the cold and exposure of winter because they lost power. The suffering touched the people of my state of Maryland as well--hitting hardest the county of Somerset, where the poverty rate is among the highest in the State and where more than 500 homes were affected by the storm. After more than two months of waiting, it is only now that the House has chosen to act. And by only considering a bill to increase the Flood Insurance Program's borrowing authority by $9.7 billion, we are only making a down payment on the problem. There are estimates that the full cost of recovery will be more than $60 billion. I had hoped that we would have voted for a relief package during the last Congress. But it is only now that the House Leadership is bringing Sandy legislation to the floor. In the meantime, the people affected by the hurricane have had to wait and will continue waiting as the Senate passes what we pass here today. Delaying for months the aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy is unjust and I am disappointed that we are not meeting today to consider a bill to address the full cost of the Hurricane's destruction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the swift passage of this bill so that those suffering around the country can get the relief they so desperately need. I also hope the Republican leadership follows through on its promise to consider additional legislation on this subject when the Congress reconvenes later this month.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 1464, the North Korea Refugee Adoption Act, and to thank Mr. Royce and Ranking Member Berman for their efforts on this important bi-partisan bill. This measure was introduced to assist North Korean children living ``stateless'' outside of that country who face starvation and neglect because they are neither North Korean citizens nor citizens of the country where they currently reside. Many of these children have Chinese fathers and North Korean mothers but are not claimed by either parent, and being stateless, don't have access to the resources of either country. The bill encourages the Homeland and State Departments to develop strategies to help reunite North Korean refugee children with their families or to facilitate the adoption of the children by citizens of South Korea, China or other countries. In the Senate, the bill was amended to require the Secretary of State to designate a representative to regularly brief the Congress on U.S. efforts to advocate for the best interests of North Korean children. There are many American families who would love to give a home to these orphans and refugee children if they could. This bill will help to facilitate that process. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6726, a bill that aims to claw back the .5% COLA promised to federal employees when the Continuing Resolution expires in March of this year. While I do not oppose the provision of the bill that freezes the pay for Members of Congress, I cannot support a measure that asks federal employees who have already disproportionately sacrificed so much for deficit reduction to sacrifice even more. This bill is yet another assault on the middle-class Americans who work to ensure that the food we eat and the water we drink are safe. These dedicated public servants protect our airports, care for our injured veterans and guard our borders. And yet, as this bill proves, their service and sacrifices are not valued by many in Congress who, when they look at federal employees can only see their pensions and pay and benefits as a source they can turn to anytime they need extra cash. Federal workers have contributed $60 billion as part of a two-year pay freeze; they contributed $15 billion more as part of the Payroll Tax Extension; and the Continuing Resolution the government is currently operating under asked them to forgo, until March, the .5% COLA they were promised this year. If this bill passes, the two year pay freeze Federal employees are currently laboring under will be extended for another year. Enough is enough! Members of Congress can afford to go without a pay raise, but Federal employees should not be treated as if they were the federal government's piggy-bank. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill so that we stop wasting our time in the dying hours of this Congress and instead focus our attention on the important business of moving the bipartisan package that the Senate passed yesterday to address the Fiscal Cliff.