Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of the State Department Rewards Program Update Act to thank my House colleagues Representatives Berman and Ros-Lehtinen for their collaboration on the bill and also to thank Senator Kerry for introducing and managing the Senate companion. This measure expands on the authority of the State Department to issue rewards for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people accused of the commission of armed terrorist attacks, drug trafficking, cybercrimes, animal poaching and transnational organized crimes. I added my name as a cosponsor to the bill because I hoped it would contribute to existing international efforts to capture Joseph Kony, the guerrilla leader of the Lord's Resistance Army who has abducted, tortured, abused and forced thousands of children into a life of brutal violence and sexual slavery. Though one of Kony's top lieutenants has been captured, Kony remains on the run. With the passage of this measure, more resources will be made available to help bring him to justice. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H. Res 134, a resolution condemning the Government of Iran for the state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and to thank Representatives Dold, Lipinski and Sherman for their collaboration on this important measure. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Government of Iran has continued to repress Baha'is and prevent them from participating in the government and the military, from joining the social pension system or attending public schools and universities unless they concealed their faith. This resolution calls on the President and Secretary of State, in cooperation with the international community, to immediately condemn the Government of Iran's violation of the human rights of the Baha'i and urges the President and Secretary of State to utilize all available measures, including sanctions on officials of the Government of Iran and other individuals directly responsible for egregious human rights violations against the Baha'i community and other minorities.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, As a cosponsor of H. Res. 834, I rise to thank Representatives Kelly and Deutch for bringing this important resolution to the floor today and to encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the measure. H. Res. 834 urges the governments of Europe and the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. According to John Brennan, the deputy national security advisor, Europe's failure to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group makes it more difficult to defend the citizens of the European Union and the United States because Hezbollah is able to openly raise funds in some European countries and because EU countries are unable to prosecute Hezbollah members suspected of plotting terrorist attacks. Hezbollah has been implicated in multiple acts of terrorism over the past 30 years, including the bombings in Lebanon in 1983 of the United States Embassy, the United States Marine barracks, and the French Army barracks, the airline hijackings and the kidnapping of European, American, and other Western hostages in the 1980s and 1990s. Before al Qaeda's attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans in terrorist attacks than any other terrorist group. Today, Hezbollah is training militants in Yemen and Syria and continues to provide financial and material support to the regime of Bashar al Assad. This resolution urges the governments of Europe and the European Union to forbid Hezbollah from using EU territory for the purpose of fundraising, recruitment, financing, training and propaganda and it will help protect European and American lives. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise to reluctantly oppose the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Conference Report. While the final version of the Defense Authorization bill makes many key improvements from the House-passed bill earlier this year, it unfortunately continues to fail the test of balance and funds billions of dollars of unnecessary programs within the Defense Department, while disregarding the caps set forth by the Budget Control Act. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, said last year when we passed the BCA, ``Tough choices will have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring shared results.'' Unfortunately, the bill that is before us violates that bipartisan agreement. In developing its plan for FY2013, the Defense Department conducted a comprehensive review of force needs, capabilities and obligations. Difficult choices were made about which programs to keep and which to cut in order to maintain a fiscally responsible mission ready capability. However, the Conference Report authorizes funding levels above those requested by the president and above the BCA. The measure authorizes $552 billion in base national defense spending for the current year and $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan--$1.7 billion above the funding levels requested by the President in his February budget submission and $6.3 billion above the cap the BCA set last year. There are many programs contained in this bill that were not requested by the Defense Department. For example, the measure authorizes the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the DoD says threatens funding for the maintenance and construction of other more urgent elements of the country's missile defense. The administration has not identified a requirement for a third U.S.-based missile defense site, and has yet to assess its feasibility or cost. The bill also includes provisions that block the administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including eighteen RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 drones. As a result, the Defense Department would be forced to operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are in excess of national requirements and are not affordable in this budget environment. At the same time, I was disappointed that the Conference Report ended funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS, a $3.4 billion missile defense system. The President asked Congress to restore funding for the system, which is being developed in a partnership with Germany and Italy and is viewed as a symbol of transatlantic cooperation. I remain concerned about potential arbitrary cuts to the civilian workforce at DoD. In particular, there is a provision in the bill that requires a percentage reduction in the civilian and service contractor employee workforces that is proportional to the reduction in military end strength over a five-year period. While I am encouraged that the Conference Report made some changes that will give the Department of Defense more flexibility than existed in the original bill, the final version could continue to compromise the Department's ability to appropriately size its workforce to meet the mission workload requirements and its readiness and management needs. As the Defense Department stated, ``. . . even during these periods of constrained defense budgets, we must ensure that we have the sufficient number of federal civilian personnel to meet the support needs of our military forces. I am also disappointed that an amendment was stripped from the Conference Report which would have banned the indefinite military detention without charge or trial of Americans and lawful U.S. residents on domestic soil. Americans and permanent residents of the U.S. who are detained in the United States should be granted the right to be tried in the civilian justice system. We can and must protect our national security without jeopardizing our fundamental rights and freedoms. I do, however, support several measures included in the final version of the NDAA. I was pleased that nearly $480 million was allocated for U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation, including $211 million for Iron Dome, reaffirming the U.S.-Israel ties on missile defense. I also support the inclusion of an amendment offered by Senator Shaheen, which allows Department of Defense funds to be used to allow female service members to choose to terminate a pregnancy in cases of rape. In addition, I was encouraged that the Conference Report proposed to enhance protections for contractor-employee whistleblowers who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts and the contracts of civilian agencies. Furthermore, I support the bill's critical human rights provisions, including new requirements to monitor overseas subcontractors for human trafficking. Despite the inclusion of these important measures, the fact remains that the FY2013 Defense Authorization Bill departs significantly from the spending levels set forth in the BCA last year. It is in violation of a bipartisan agreement and understanding that in order to get our fiscal house in order we have to make tough decisions on defense and non-defense spending alike. For those reasons, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1845, a combination of two common-sense Medicare reforms that would improve access to intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) home infusion for beneficiaries with primary immunodeficiency diseases while streamlining the process for repayments to the Medicare Trust Fund. While the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 sought to ensure that patients needing IVIG therapy could receive their infusions at home, the current policy does not cover the items and services necessary for providers to administer it in the home. As a result, access to home infusion is limited and seniors who rely solely on Medicare have no choice but to receive their treatments in the hospital, a more risky environment for immune deficient patients. The Medicare IVIG Access Act would create a three-year demonstration project that would study coverage of the items and services needed to administer IVIG home infusion. This legislation is fiscally responsible, paid for through the inclusion of the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers (SMART) Act. The SMART Act would sensibly reform the Medicare Secondary Payer system, increasing the likelihood of and speed up reimbursements to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is a win-win--beneficiaries and companies will be able to resolve their claims faster and the Trust Fund will be strengthened through a more efficient repayment process. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's true that our Republican colleagues are not going to have a partner for a totally lopsided, unbalanced approach, that, once again, minimizes the responsibility of the wealthiest of the country at the expense of everybody else. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What is unbalanced is the Republican package that we see on the floor today. We already talked about the numbers of the Republican Plan B tax proposal which compared to going over the fiscal cliff and the Senate alternative would actually provide millionaires with a $50,000 tax cut on average while 25 million American families will actually see a tax increase of $1,000 on average, including, Mr. Speaker, some of our soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan today. The majority leader talked about doing the math. Then do the math on the tax plan, because that's exactly what it shows. What the President has called for is a balanced plan that asks for the wealthiest to share the burden of our deficit challenge and make sure that we get our economy in full gear. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ 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. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), and I congratulate her on becoming the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points here. First, the chairman of the Budget Committee said that the President hadn't put any specific spending cuts on the table. That's just not true. His proposal has been available to the public for well over a year now. As to just one specific proposal, the President has said we should get rid of excessive agriculture subsidies. He has called for $30 billion on that item alone.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. In reclaiming my time, that also is not true, and on that, we will have a longer discussion. The reality is ag subsidies are one very concrete example. Interestingly, this bill that our Republican colleagues have brought to the floor, again, while cutting deeply into the food and nutrition programs, doesn't take one penny from ag subsidies for agrabusinesses. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's also important to correct another statement that has been made by both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Ag Committee with respect to the food program. I think the chairman knows that the SNAP statute provides in statute two routes for people to be eligible for food and nutrition assistance--one is the specific income and asset test, or they can become eligible under the SNAP statute based on participation in other programs in which they have to show income-based need. Nobody wants fraud. We should find every dollar of wasted money and get rid of it, but don't pretend that people who qualify under the statute are engaged in fraud. What you're proposing to do in this Republican bill is to deny millions of those people on nutrition programs their legal support, and we do not think we should be doing that. At the same time, we are giving millionaires a $50,000 average tax cut. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the Budget Committee began his closing remarks by saying, ``Let's take a step back.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what this package of bills does for the country; it takes us many steps back. And the reason it takes us back is because the Speaker of this House has backed out of negotiations with the President for a balanced approach to dealing with our deficit and making sure that we accelerate economic growth and job creation in this country. The issue has never been whether or not to reduce our long-term deficit. The question has always been: How? And how you do it reflects your priorities. The President has made clear his priority is not to give higher income individuals another tax break relative to what would happen if we went over the fiscal cliff, and yet that's exactly what this package of proposals would do. I've used this chart a couple of times, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to use it again, and with good reason, because no one has or can dispute the facts in this chart. The reality is, while folks who earn more than $1 million a year, about 402 families in this country--and God bless them, we want people to keep making more money; the issue here is shared responsibility for reducing our deficit--under the Republican plan relative to the Senate bill, they're going to get a $50,000 average tax break, while over 25 million Americans will see an increase in their tax obligation compared with where we are today. We don't think that's balanced. That's not even balanced within their tax plan. At the same time, they bring to the floor today a bill, a sequestration bill that, by the way, leaves in place the cuts to Medicare and then cuts support for kids on food stamps and children under the health insurance bill, groups that, frankly, would be protected if we went over the fiscal cliff under current law. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of priorities. So what this motion to recommit does is say, you know what, we think it's time that we end the taxpayer giveaways and subsidies to the Big Oil companies. My goodness, why should all of us be providing them one more round of tax breaks? Gas prices are high, their profits are going through the roof, taxpayers should not be subsidizing that. And we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing that when we have before us a bill that removes about 300,000 kids from the school lunch program and removes about 300,000 kids from the Children's Health Insurance Program in the year 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So, again, this is about priorities. What this very simple motion to recommit does, in addition to asking that oil companies no longer keep getting taxpayer subsidies, is just to disclose to the public what the impact of these cuts will be on citizens throughout this country. It says, tell us what the impact of the Medicare and Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program cuts will be on kids and others in our congressional districts. At the very least, we should know what we're doing. The Congressional Budget Office had told us, but anybody who thinks that that independent, nonpartisan group has its projections wrong, we'll get a real world check. So this is simple accountability. This is understanding what the impact of your vote will be. So I would hope that our colleagues would recognize that at this time, when oil companies are doing just great, they don't need welfare from the U.S. Government. We should also understand very clearly what the impact of these cuts will be because the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are that it's going to have a very serious negative impact on kids' health, as well as in terms of the support under the preventive health fund for women around the country. So, for example, with the $10 billion cut to the prevention fund, 326,000 women would not get breast cancer screenings; 284,000 women would not get cervical cancer screenings they are slated to receive in 2013. These cuts have real impact. So the question is not whether to make cuts--we have to make cuts. The President has put $1.2 trillion in additional cuts forward on top of the $1 trillion. We're just asking for balance. We're asking for common sense in our priorities. I urge people to support the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I will just say a few words again about the priorities reflected in this Republican package. If you look at Plan B, the tax part, you're giving people who earn over $1 million a year on average a $50,000 tax cut compared to what it would be under the Senate proposal. At the same time, under this proposal that we're talking about here on the floor of the House, you're talking about eliminating important support in food and nutrition programs for millions of Americans, including for 300,000 kids who would no longer be on school lunch programs. What this boils down to once again, Mr. Speaker, is a question of priorities. We've got to reduce our deficit, and we've got to get the economy moving again. But we have to deal with the deficit in a balanced way, not in a way that provides additional tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of the country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's talk a little bit about what this Republican package will and will not do with respect to health issues. First of all, while their bill would replace much of the sequester, they leave in place the 2 percent across-the-board Medicare cut. Let me say that again. Despite all the talk we're hearing today on the floor about their efforts to replace these across-the-board cuts, they leave them in place for Medicare, which will hit providers and have an impact on the Medicare system. Second, with respect to children's health, they cut about $20 billion from Medicaid and the Children's Health program over the next 10 years, even though those programs are protected from the sequester. So if we were to go over the fiscal cliff--which apparently is the way our Republican colleagues want to take us right now because we're not down talking with the President but we're here on the floor. If we go over the fiscal cliff, those children's health care is protected. But if we adopt the Republican proposal, those children will actually see less health security. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2015, there will be 300,000 children who no longer have coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program. That's what they're proposing here, even as their tax Plan B provides millionaires with an average tax break of $50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and even though their tax plan, while providing millionaires that average rate compared to the Senate plan, is going to increase the tax burden on 25 million families. So an average tax cut for millionaires of $50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and at the same time a sequester proposal that would result in 300,000 kids in the year 2015 losing their Children's Health Insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. There you have, Mr. Speaker, the priorities in the Republican plan. That's not balance. Look, the reason we're here is because our Republican colleagues refuse to compromise. They bring this bill to the floor in the name of a productive contribution to compromise when this virtually identical bill did not get a single Democratic vote last spring--not one. And that's compromise? The Senate has already said it's not going to take up this bill. That old bill has been sitting over there, and the President has said he would veto it. We are wasting the people's time, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the Speaker of this House to negotiate with the President. Now, we know what the problem is. There's this book, Mr. Speaker, which is very aptly titled, ``It's Even Worse Than It Looks.'' This book was written by two scholars of the Congress, one person in a Democratic-leaning think tank and the other in a Republican-leaning think tank. Here's what they say, and they say it with great regret. They say: The problem is that in the House today, we have a Republican Party that's become an insurgent outlier, ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, and scornful of compromise. That's from two independent, nonpartisan scholars. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the problem we've got here today. It's time for the Speaker to actually follow the good counsel of many members of his caucus. Either take up the Senate bill and pass it, or let's get serious and negotiate with the President, who's put forward a balanced plan, a plan, as many of my colleagues have said, that a lot of Democrats don't like. In fact, there are going to be Democrats who don't vote for even the proposals the President's put forward already. Many are still reserving judgment. That's the test of compromise, not a bill that comes to the floor that's never had a single Democratic vote. That's not compromise. The American people want us to work together. Let's stop playing these political games, Mr. Speaker. Let's not bring to the floor of the House bills that have never gotten a Democratic vote before, and which the President has already indicated he will veto because they fail the important test of balance. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, I just want to say to my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have great respect for him. And I hope he won't take it the wrong way, but I'm glad to have you back, and look forward to actually working with you next year. I actually hoped that we'd be able to work in a bipartisan way, starting right now. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case, and we are engaged here in the House on this floor today in what has become a ridiculous political stunt which will actually take us much closer as a country to going over the fiscal cliff. We're wasting valuable time. The Speaker should be engaged with the President of the United States in negotiations rather than having walked away from those negotiations with the President. That walking away is becoming a bad habit. The President put on the table a balanced budget plan that calls for shared responsibility. It calls for $1.2 trillion in additional revenues from high-income earners over the next 10 years, and $1.2 trillion in additional cuts, if you include the interest savings over the next 10 years. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, that $1.2 trillion in cuts comes on top of the over $1 trillion in cuts that have already been agreed to this year. And to our colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, when he says that the President hasn't lifted a finger to remove the sequester on defense, that's just not true. It's just not true. In fact, the President's proposal to cut the $1.2 trillion would also remove the sequester for at least 1 year--and maybe for 10. And it's more cuts total than what we're talking about on the floor here today. So what we really have, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that too many of our Republican colleagues still think that compromise is a dirty word. And that's what brings us to the floor today in this political exercise. As has, unfortunately, been the case throughout the year, the Republican package that we're dealing with today has two objectives. One objective is to minimize the impact of the budget challenge on high-income earners and to shift that burden on the middle-income earners and working people. The numbers tell the story, Mr. Speaker. Because if we go over the fiscal cliff, people earning over $1 million will face a significant income tax hike. But under the Republican Plan B, compared to the Senate plan that is before this House right now, the House Republican plan would give those millionaires a $50,000 tax break on average. But do you know who would pay more under a Republican Plan B? A whole lot of middle class families. Eleven million families will see an average of $1,100 tax increase because the Republican Plan B takes away the tuition tax credit. Twelve million families will lose the enhanced child tax credit; they will face $800 more burden. EITC, 6 million families will pay more. The typical U.S. Army private--including those men and women serving us in Afghanistan today--married with a newborn infant will see a $453 increase in taxes as a result of Republican Plan B. On average, 25 million families will pay an average of $1,000 more so that 402,000 families who make over $1 million can get an average tax break of $50,000. That's the tax part of Republican Plan B. We're here today right now talking about the cutting part of Republican Plan B. I think all of us recall during the election the Republican Presidential candidate said: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. And then he went on to say: And so my job is not to worry about those people. Well, you know what? The Republican sequester-cutting plan today is making their nominee's promise come true. It sends a signal that our Republican colleagues just don't care about the 47 percent. Because you know who gets hit? Here's what it would do. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this is a recycled version. We had virtually the same bill on the floor last spring; we're just doing it again. That bill did not get one single Democratic vote, and now it's brought here under the premise of some kind of bipartisan approach. The reason it didn't get Democratic support is, while they're providing these tax breaks to people making over $1 million compared to what it would be if we went over the fiscal cliff, 22 million children will face reduced or eliminated food benefits. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. 1.8 million Americans will permanently lose their food assistance, and of those, nearly 300,000 children will lose their school free or reduced lunch program. So what this sequester-avoidance plan does is make good on the promise that Republicans don't care about the 47 percent. That's why it didn't get any Democratic votes last spring. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against it today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish the outgoing chairman of Financial Services would check his facts. Ms. Pelosi, the Democratic leader, did not make a tax proposal that would give people over $1 million a year a $50,000 tax break, which is exactly what the Republican plan would do, number one. Number two, the proposal that the President has put on the table has $1.2 trillion cuts if you include interest savings, which is more than the cuts here, and will also deal with the sequester. Number three, the Republican proposal out of Financial Services will increase the likelihood that taxpayers have to bail out the financial industry again, not reduce it. And number four, they strip away the independence of the Consumer Finance Protection Board so that lobbyists can meddle in exactly how they do their work so that they're looking out for lobbyists' interests rather than the interests of the American people. So this whole approach that we're seeing right here is another example of trying to help the folks at the very top at the expense of the rest of the country. And, Mr. Bachus, it wasn't me making the 40 percent comment talking about dividing America. That was the comment made by the Republican candidate for President. With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished lady from New York, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lowey, and I congratulate her on becoming the new ranking member.