Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the potential damage that sequestration could cause to vital efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is our nation's largest estuary, with a 64,000 square mile watershed that crosses six states and the District of Columbia and is home to 17 million people and over 3,600 species of animals and plants. In 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel estimated the economic value of the Bay at over $1 trillion annually. This vast resource presents unique challenges--the health of the Bay has been threatened by nutrient runoff, population growth and development, overfishing, and even natural factors like rain and snowfall. For nearly thirty years, the Federal government has been a partner in Bay restoration through the Chesapeake Bay Program, an innovative regional partnership that fosters collaboration among the multiple state and local governments, agencies, and advisory groups in the watershed. In 2009, the President, with the support of those of us in the Bay states, signed an Executive Order to accelerate Bay clean-up by improving targets and coordinating resources. It's an ambitious plan, and states and localities are working hard on implementation. But they cannot do it alone. The federal government must be an active partner, providing financial support and technical assistance. For example, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund finances capital projects for wastewater treatment upgrades and helps local governments manage stormwater projects, curbing runoff pollution into the Bay. In Maryland, it will cost over $2 billion between 2010 and 2017 to make the necessary stormwater improvements to meet its pollution reduction targets. Sequestration would cut nearly $196 million from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water funds, limiting resources for these vital repairs and breaking faith with our state and local partners on this collaborative effort. Chesapeake Bay clean-up is at a critical juncture. As state and local governments are working to implement ambitious plans, the federal government must maintain or increase its funding support, not cut it. Sequestration's meat-ax approach jeopardizes the years of planning and collaboration that have led to this moment, arbitrarily and unwisely slowing progress on what should be a national priority. We must replace sequestration with a balanced approach that includes revenue increases and targeted cuts while maintaining investments in initiatives like Bay restoration that preserve our national resources. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and an economic engine for the Bay states. It must not fall victim to sequestration's ill-advised cuts.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and celebrate the life of Michael Bowlds, my constituent and a man of unique vision. Michael passed away last month after a courageous battle with cancer. Even until his final days, Michael worked tirelessly to make a difference in the lives of others. Michael was an award-winning sales, business development, and marketing professional. A highly regarded government contracting expert, he established Mountaintop Marketing Group, one of the top government marketing firms in the country. Michael's accomplishments as a business leader were widely recognized. He was named the 2009 ``Advocate of the Year'' by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency and commended for his leadership, guidance and support in assisting small and minority-owned firms with securing over $200 million in government contracts in that year alone. Nationally recognized as a leading Minority Business Champion, Michael and Mountaintop Marketing Group hosted the Annual Minority Business Awards Gala in conjunction with Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. He was a recipient of the prestigious ``Yeti Zanders Outstanding Advocate of the Year'' Award presented by the National Capital Area Minority Business Opportunities Center, selected as one of the ``2010 Top 25 CEOs'' by the Gazette of Business and Politics, and named one of the ``50 Powerful Men In Business'' by the Minority Enterprise Executive Council. Michael served as Board Chairman for the National Capital Area Minority Business Opportunities Center Advisory Board and on the Board of Directors of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, and was a founding member and financial underwriter of the Montgomery County Chamber's Government Contracting Network. He also served on the Board of Directors for the National Women's Business Center. An active member of his community, Michael was deeply involved in mentoring small businesses through the Montgomery County Small Business Mentorship Program. He also was a founding member and instructor of the Montgomery Chamber of Commerce's Veteran Institute for Procurement. I send my condolences to his wife Courtney, his three children and his many friends and colleagues throughout our community. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, an unnecessarily partisan bill to increase the number of visas for foreign students graduating with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). While I strongly believe we should increase the number of visas for these students, I oppose this bill because it eliminates the Diversity Visa Program. There is broad bipartisan support to increase the number of STEM visas. It is unfortunate that the Republican Leadership brought this bill to the floor. President Obama highlighted his support for increasing the number of STEM visas in his 2012 State of the Union Address, when he stated that it made no sense to train foreign students with advanced STEM degrees and then ``send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.'' This bill is virtually identical to the version the House considered last September. However, Republicans added a provision to reauthorize the temporary ``V visa'' program. I support the ``V visa'' program, because it unites families. Unfortunately, the Republicans restricted the ``V visas'' by eliminating the ability to obtain work authorization and by not allowing spouses and children already here to participate in the program. This bill is flawed and we can do better. I wish the Republican Leadership would have brought to the floor a bill introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren to increase the number of STEM visas without eliminating the Diversity Visas Program. I support that legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, Sunday marks the third anniversary of the incarceration of Alan P. Gross. Each day that he sits in a Cuban jail is further evidence that the Cuban government has total disregard for his human rights. Three years ago Alan Gross was imprisoned for sharing communications equipment with Cuba's Jewish community. During and after his trial, the Cuban government ignored concerns that have been repeatedly raised about his health. Since his incarceration began, he has lost 110 pounds. The Cuban government has also refused to allow an independent physician to examine a growth that has developed on his shoulder. A campaign has begun in the United Nations to hold Cuba accountable for willfully disregarding his declining health. I call on the Cuban government to recognize Alan Gross's human rights and provide him immediate access to an independent physician so that any questions about his health can be answered. As the three year anniversary of the imprisonment of Alan Gross approaches, my sympathies and prayers are with his friends and family. I join them, my colleagues and the rest of the international community in calling for Alan's immediate release. We will not rest until justice is done and Alan Gross is free.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, I rise today in commemoration of the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. In 2005, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a Resolution that calls for a worldwide recognition of the third Sunday in November each year as the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. Each year on this day we remember the victims of road crashes and the difficulties faced by their loved ones who must cope with the awful emotional and practical consequences of these tragedies. Road crashes are a critical public health issue. According to the 2009 Global Status Report on Road Safety, road crashes contribute to approximately 1.3 million deaths around the world each year. By 2030, the number of fatalities is projected to increase exponentially, making road crashes the fifth leading cause of death in the world. This year's theme for World Remembrance Day--``Now is the time to learn from the past''--focuses on the need for organizations and nations around the world to join in the discussion of prevention programs and methods. We must examine failed strategies and devise stronger and more effective road safety policies. I am honored that ASIRT--the Association for Safe International Road Travel--is headquartered in my congressional district. ASIRT is a non- profit organization that emphasizes the importance of global road safety through education, advocacy, and road safety projects. Over the years, ASIRT has done extraordinary work to keep travelers safe on the world's roads. Its efforts have saved countless lives as it draws attention to this critical public health issue. As we observe the 2012 World Day of Remembrance, I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of reflection, remembering the lives affected by road crashes and the continued need to do all we can to make the world a safer place.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6156, which would extend to the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova permanent normal trade relations (PNTR). While Russia completed its ascension to the World Trade Organization (WTO) earlier this year, U.S. businesses are currently at a competitive disadvantage to world competitors and we cannot utilize WTO dispute mechanisms because of a Cold War-era law that has outlived its purpose. The Jackson-Vanik amendment rightly restricted trade relations with the former Soviet Union until it allowed Jews to emigrate freely--and it accomplished that objective. Now, it is important that we extend PNTR to Russia to allow our businesses to compete in the Russian market and to make use of WTO mechanisms that will force Russia to play by the rules. There are enormous opportunities for American exporters in the Russian market, especially for manufacturers of machinery, aircraft, and computer and electronic parts. While this bill is not perfect, it sets strong enforcement procedures by requiring the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to report annually to Congress on Russia's implementation of its WTO obligations (including food safety issues, intellectual property protections, and implementation of the WTO Information Technology Agreement and Agreement on Government Procurement). This legislation also requires the USTR and State Department to report on Russia's promotion of the rule of law, which must improve to provide certainty to investors, curb bribery and corruption, and most importantly improve human rights. That is why I am pleased that this legislation also includes provisions from the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which hold accountable those responsible for the detention and death of Russian activist Sergei Magnitsky. This sends a message to Russia that ascension to the WTO comes with responsibilities, including compliance with international trade agreements, enforcement of the rule of law, and protection of human rights--especially those of political dissenters. Again, this bill is not perfect and could have included stronger enforcement provisions to ensure the protection of labor groups in Russia. Unfortunately, it was considered under a closed rule and no amendments were permitted. It is essential, however, that we extend PNTR to allow our businesses to compete and WTO enforcement mechanisms to function. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of her retirement after nearly 36 years of federal service, I would like to recognize a member of the staff of the Congressional Budget Office: Linda Schimmel. Her last day with the agency will be this Friday, October 19. Linda Schimmel has spent almost all of her federal career as the Publications Coordinator at CBO, working for all eight of its directors as well as the several acting directors in between. In that role, she has provided exemplary and faithful service in distributing CBO analyses, making certain to get them into the hands of Members of Congress, Congressional and agency staff, and members of the public in a timely way. Her knowledge and hard work have meant that CBO's publications office has provided customer service to an extraordinary degree over the years, service that goes well beyond what is necessary and expected--to show real devotion to helping customers. For all that she has done, she has earned the admiration and affection of her colleagues at CBO and the gratitude of the U.S. Congress. I am wishing her well in her retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. This is the whistleblower amendment?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Reserving the right to object, I just want to understand. Is this an amendment to the whistleblower bill or this is the whistleblower bill?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I think the bill's good. We just passed by unanimous consent important measures, and I strongly support the whistleblower protection bill which will protect Federal employees against retaliation if they're shining a little sunlight on violations, abuses in the Federal Government, and I do believe that we should adopt this measure. I also believe that the House should reconvene to conduct the other business before the House, and with that, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 118, the Election-Year Partisan Welfare Resolution. This political stunt--based entirely on untruths--is a futile attempt to distort the Administration's position in order to score political points. As independent fact-checkers and experts have resoundingly stated, the Administration's proposal to help states move more people from welfare to work does nothing to undermine the 1996 Welfare Reform law. The HHS notice emphasizes that these waivers must improve the employment of welfare recipients. Governors must ensure that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work. These are the facts. This strategy, which provides States more flexibility to help get people back to work, is sound policy that cuts red tape and can increase the efficiency of the welfare system. For this reason, two Republican governors requested that HHS offer these waivers. Additionally, the GOP-led House found it unobjectionable enough to pass legislation allowing welfare waivers in 2002, 2003, and 2005. House Republicans are today wasting precious legislative time that should be spent passing the President's jobs plan, extending middle- class tax cuts, and addressing the fiscal cliff to prevent the disastrous effects of sequestration. Instead, they decided to again put politics before the American people by accusing the Administration of doing something that it is simply not doing. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, an unnecessarily partisan bill to increase the number of visas for foreign students graduating with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). While I strongly believe we should increase the number of visas for these students, I oppose this bill because it eliminates the Diversity Visa Program. There is broad bipartisan support to increase the number of STEM visas. It is unfortunate that the Republican Leadership brought this bill to the floor. President Obama highlighted his support for increasing the number of STEM visas in his 2012 State of the Union Address, when he stated that it made no sense to train foreign students with advanced STEM degrees and then ``send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.'' I wish the Republican Leadership would have brought to the floor a bill introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren to increase the number of STEM visas without eliminating the Diversity Visas Program. I support that legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Russell E. Train, one of our country's most influential and accomplished environmentalists, who died on September 17, 2012 at age 92. Russell Train was instrumental in developing our nation's environmental policies. He served under Presidents Nixon and Ford as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Under his leadership, the nation made large strides in protecting our air, water, and wildlife, including the adoption of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act, the Clean Air Act, coastal zone management, national land-use policy, environmental impact statements and the Endangered Species Act. During his tenure, EPA banned four extremely toxic farm chemicals--aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor and chlordane--and instituted automobile emission limits. Mr. Train developed the concept and promoted the establishment of UNESCO's (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) World Heritage program, which provides vital protection to 730 cultural and natural sites around the world and builds on the American national park concept. Mr. Train's passion and dedication for conservation and the environment were strengthened by travels with his wife Aileen to Africa. In 1961 he founded the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation and in 1965 he resigned as a United States Tax Court judge to become president of the Conservation Foundation. He served as the Foundation's president until 1969, when he was appointed Under Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Train then served as the first chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality from 1970-73 before leading the EPA from 1973-77. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was an important part of Mr. Train's life for over fifty years, from its founding in 1961 until his death. Mr. Train was the first vice-president of WWF-US and was Chairman of the Board of Directors of World Wildlife Fund and of the Conservation Foundation from 1985 until they merged as WWF in 1990. In 1994 Mr. Train was elected WWF Chairman Emeritus and served as Chairman of the WWF National Council from 1994-2001. Mr. Train led WWF-US through extraordinary growth from its inception to become the leading global conservation organization it is today. Mr. Train remained active on the WWF-US Board of Directors and was regularly seen at the WWF offices, encouraging staff and extolling the importance of the EPA. Carter S. Roberts, President & CEO of WWF-US, says of Mr. Train, ``Russ was a true national treasure and an inspiration to all of us who embrace conservation as their life's work. He will be well remembered, and forever missed.'' Mr. Train received many awards and recognitions, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Heinz Award and the Teddy Roosevelt International Conservation Award. Russell E. Train was born in Jamestown, Rhode Island and grew up in Washington, DC. He graduated from Princeton University and Columbia University Law School. Mr. Train served in the U.S. Army during World War II. Mr. Train believed that conservation and environmentalism weren't Democratic or Republican issues--they were national and international issues of importance to everyone who cared about the future of our planet. In 2003, Train published Politics, Pollution and Pandas: An Environmental Memoir, tracing his career and providing a history of the U.S. environmental movement. In his memoir, Mr. Train wrote, ``I felt strongly that environmental issues needed a sharp, cutting edge in government, one that had high visibility to the public.'' Fortunately, he noted, ``this view finally prevailed.'' I hope we can return to a time when protecting our air, water, and the environment is a shared, bipartisan goal. I am proud to have counted Russell Train among my friends and am grateful for his support for our ongoing efforts to follow in former President Teddy Roosevelt's tradition of protecting and preserving our national heritage. At this time in our country's history, we need more Russell Trains. We will miss him dearly, but his legacy is all around us in the cleaner air we breathe, the safer water we drink, and the wildlife that he fought to preserve. When we think of Russell Train, we must block efforts to roll back the victories he won and fight to build upon his noble legacy. I extend my deepest condolences to Russ Train's wife of 58 years, Aileen Bowdoin Train; to his four children, Emily Rowan, Nancy Smith Gustin, Charles B. Train and my grade-school classmate, Errol T. Giordano; and to his twelve grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Russell E. Train for his extraordinary contributions to our country and our world.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House votes again to dismantle what was once a bipartisan pledge to the American people--that everyone in this nation deserves clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. On this, the last day of session before the House leadership has chosen to adjourn, we could be passing a jobs bill, extending the middle class tax cuts, or working to prevent the sequester and reduce the deficit. Instead, we are voting on a package of bills--most of which we have voted on before--to strip basic environmental protections for our air and water. Today's bill would systematically dismantle the Clean Water Act, undermine the Clean Air Act, prevent any action to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash, and eliminate the EPA's ability to reduce carbon pollution. In an unprecedented move, it would repeal in statute a scientific finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases endanger public health, confirming that the House of Representatives is an evidence-free zone. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid some of my Tea Party colleagues would have lined up to put Galileo in jail. The bill nullifies the new fuel efficiency pollution standards for vehicles--standards that would save consumers money at the pump and that are supported by 13 major auto manufacturers representing more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. It nullifies the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, preventing the EPA from reducing emissions of mercury, a powerful neurotoxin that is particularly dangerous for young children and pregnant women. Mr. Speaker, this broad, damaging legislation would roll back 40 years of progress for clean air and water. We cannot afford to return to a time when industrial polluters used lakes and streams as dumping grounds for dangerous chemicals and factories sent toxic fumes into the air. We must protect public health, defend our environment, and reject this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) on its 40th anniversary and recognize this extraordinary university whose graduates serve our nation by caring for those in harm's way. I am honored that USU is located in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District. Graduates of USU, which is based in Bethesda, Maryland, provide front-line care for our troops in Afghanistan and around the globe, aboard ships and airplanes equipped as state-of-the-art hospitals/ emergency rooms and in public health facilities throughout our nation. These outstanding women and men are educated at USU in medicine, graduate nursing, dentistry, clinical psychology and biomedical research. Over the past ten years, USU alumni have been routinely deployed in combat zones. They have established forward hospitals and have advanced battlefield medicine in ways not even envisioned only one decade ago. They have saved lives and worked to help restore wounded heroes' health. They have advanced basic research to address traumatic brain injury, amputations, post-traumatic stress, and treatment for infectious diseases, and have worked under harsh and austere conditions to provide the highest quality health care possible. USU was established by an Act of Congress in 1972. Since then, it has graduated nearly 5,000 physicians along with hundreds who have received degrees in biomedical sciences in the School of Medicine and graduate level nursing in the Graduate School of Nursing. Recently, USU expanded to include a Postgraduate Dental College. Charles Rice, MD, President of USU, describes USU as follows: The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is a center of excellence for military and public health education and research. USU's programs are unique, as are our dedicated faculty, staff and students. The university benefits tremendously from its extraordinary alumni who return to teach, conduct research and guide others in clinical care. These devoted professionals bring a wealth of experience gained in military treatment facilities throughout the U.S. and around the world, as well as in combat, on ships, in airborne intensive care units, amid natural disasters and among a multitude of cultures. Since 1980, when USU's F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine graduated its first class, the school has produced talented and dedicated physicians and leaders who serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Public Health Service. They include the following distinguished alumni: Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Thomas W. Travis, U.S. Air Force, class of 1986, who in July 2012, took over as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States Air Force. Rear Admiral (Dr.) Michael Anderson, U.S. Navy, class of 1983, who is proudly serving as the Medical Officer of the Marine Corps, overseeing the health care of more than 200,000 active duty Marines and their families. Rear Admiral (Dr.) Sarah Linde-Feucht, U.S. Public Health Service, class of 1992, a board-certified family physician who is also the Chief Public Health Officer for the Health Resources Services Administration, where she is a member of the executive leadership team and senior policy advisor to the HRSA Administrator. Col. (Dr.) Paul Pasquina, U.S. Army, class of 1991, who heads the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Service at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, and is responsible for ensuring that the many U.S. service members returning from combat with often debilitating physical and mental injuries are receiving the best care possible. These include soldiers like Army Col. Gregory Gadson, who lost both legs in Iraq, but with Col. Pasquina as his doctor, became the first recipient of the prosthetic ``power knees'' and remains on active duty as the new commander of Fort Belvoir in Virginia. USU has also awarded nearly 1,300 degrees in the biomedical sciences to individuals who advance the science that underlies our ability to treat and protect against infectious diseases and other maladies affecting humankind. Distinguished alumni include the following: Dr. Katherine Bossart, a 2003 Ph.D. graduate in Emerging Infectious Diseases now at Boston University, developed the first treatment (antibody) and first vaccine against two deadly viruses, Nipah and Hendra, that could be used as potential biothreat agents. The antibody was successfully used, through compassionate use exception, to save the lives of three individuals with significant exposure to the Hendra virus. Brigadier-General (Dr.) Jean-Robert Bernier, Canadian Defence Force, a 1997 graduate of USU's Master of Public Health degree program, was sworn in as the Surgeon General of Canada in July 2012. The USU Graduate School of Nursing has conferred more than 600 master's degrees since its founding in 1993 and 15 doctorates since opening its Ph.D. program in 2003. These men and women serve in uniformed and federal services at home and abroad. They also work with the school's faculty to conduct research. Air Force Capt. Jennifer Curtis, who graduated from USU's Family Nurse Practitioner program, Graduate School of Nursing, in 2009, was awarded the Bronze Star and other decorations for her heroic lifesaving actions of six soldiers while under fire in Afghanistan during her very first deployment. In addition to its world-class educational programs, USU is dedicated to innovative research in military medicine, nursing and oral health as well as public health. Its research programs, devoted to preventive medicine, infectious disease, prosthetics, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, are relevant both locally and globally. The civilian members of USU's Board of Regents are appointed by the Secretary of Defense. They are prominent leaders in health care, higher education and public policy from across the country. Current members include: Otis Brawley, M.D., Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President, American Cancer Society Sheila Burke, Senior Policy Analyst at Baker Donelson and former Under Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution General (Ret.) Ronald Griffith, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Michael Johns, M.D., Chancellor of Emory University Haile Debas, M.D., Executive Director of Global Health Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco Kenneth Moritsugu, M.D., Vice President, Global Strategic Affairs for LifeScan, Inc., former Deputy Surgeon General of the United States Gail Wilensky, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at Project HOPE and former Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration Ronald Blanck, D.O., Chairman and Partner of Martin, Blanck & Associates, former Army Surgeon General, and former President of the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth. Dr. Blanck serves as Chair of USU's Board of Regents. Ex-officio members of the Board include: Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Lt. General Patricia Horoho, Surgeon General of the U.S. Army Vice Admiral Matthew Nathan, Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy Lt. General Thomas Travis, Surgeon General of the U.S. Air Force Vice Admiral Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General of the United States Dr. Charles L. Rice, President of the Uniformed Services University The Board members' experience, knowledge and ideas will enable USU to continue its fine tradition of making significant contributions to military medicine and public health, helping to create a stronger, more effective military and federal health system in service to our nation and the global community. Our nation is fortunate that USU fulfills well its mission of educating future generations of military and public health physicians, nurses, dentists and biomedical scientists. Moreover, USU is a particularly compelling example of the importance of public investment in our nation's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress, the leadership of the Department of Defense and the USU to ensure that USU has the support it needs to continue to fulfill the vision of its founders. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating USU, its students, alumni, faculty and staff on forty years of extraordinary contributions to our nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That would actually raise some money to help reduce the deficit and ask for some shared responsibility. This bill is the ``pretty please'' bill. Pretty please, Warren Buffet, pretty please, Mitt Romney, won't you help contribute a little bit more toward reducing our deficit? I can understand why people like Mitt Romney would love this bill because it asks nothing more of them at a time when we should be taking a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. Just last week, we had a debate here about sequester. Everybody agreed, Republicans and Democrats, it would be really bad to have these across-the-board cuts take place. Buzz saw cuts. Our Republican colleagues and we both talked about the negative impact on defense, also on the FBI, on border security. You know what? We had a proposal to pay for part of that to prevent the sequester with the Buffett rule and some other cuts. Our Republican colleagues talked about the terrible consequences of the cuts, but they just don't want to pay for them. They don't want to ask very wealthy Americans to contribute one more penny.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman. Soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan, we decided that they shouldn't have to pay taxes on their combat pay. Apparently, Mitt Romney wants them to have to pay taxes on that money where they're not taking personal responsibility. Millions of other Americans are working hard every day to make ends meet. They may be making $25,000, have two kids. And you're right, we have standard deductions and we have personal exemptions so that people making $25,000 a year don't get hit really hard with income tax. And yet those individuals are paying an effective tax rate more than Mitt Romney. As the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, if you combine the different parts of the payroll tax, they're at 15 percent. Mitt Romney is at 13 percent. And you know what the Buffett rule would do, the real one? The real one would say for people like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney, they should at least pay 30 percent over $2 million. There's a phase-in between $1 million and $2 million. That's what the real Buffett rule does. And what adds insult to injury is that while Mitt Romney and Republicans are proposing a tax plan that would give a break for folks at the very top, the nonpartisan, independent Tax Policy Center says they want to pay for that by increasing taxes on middle-income Americans to the effect of about $2,000 a year more for an average middle class family. Those are people on top of the 47 percent who are just paying payroll taxes. So here we have a proposal by our Republican colleagues to provide big tax breaks to folks at the very top, and they want to come and make a mockery of the real Buffett rule. The real Buffett rule would actually generate $47 billion. Is that going to solve our deficit problem? Of course not. Will it contribute to helping it? Yes.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Levin. I was just listening to the previous speaker. The issue is not whether we reduce our long-term deficits. We've got to do that. The question is: How? And every bipartisan group that has looked at this issue has said in order to do this in a smart and credible way, we have to make some additional tough cuts in reforms. But we also need to raise additional revenue. And if we don't raise any more revenue, it means that everybody else is going to get hit even harder. Seniors on Medicare will have to pay more through the voucher plan than our Republican colleagues have proposed. Kids' education grants and loans will be cut. Our investment in infrastructure will be cut. So what we've said is, Let's take that balanced approach to reducing the deficit and that folks who have done very well should contribute a little bit more toward helping our Nation in that way. Our Republican colleagues have said, No, no, no, no, we're not going to ask people like Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney or very wealthy people to pay one more penny--not one--toward reducing our deficit. And, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say it's astounding that our Republican colleagues would bring this bill to the floor of this House any day, but especially today. There is apparently no embarrassment factor about the fact that just yesterday this tape surfaced with Mitt Romney talking about the fact that 47 million Americans are not paying enough Federal taxes, that they're somehow not taking personal responsibility. You might as well name this piece of legislation: Give Mitt Romney Another Big Tax Break. Because as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, the real Buffett rule says to people like Warren Buffett and people like Mitt Romney and to people who have done very well: We need you to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction, just like you were doing when President Clinton was President. Just go back to paying the same rate as when President Clinton was President. And, by the way, President Obama has called upon this Congress to immediately extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people and 97 percent of all businesses that do business pass-throughs. What our Republican colleagues want to do is to say to Bain Capital and some of the Fortune 100 companies: You don't have to pay any more to reduce our deficit. And they use the language of small business as a cover for that. Now let's look at who was among those 47 percent of Americans that Governor Romney was talking about yesterday. Seniors who paid into Medicare, who paid into Social Security, who don't have any Federal income tax liability. They're being under-taxed, apparently, or they're not taking personal responsibility. How about our soldiers? We decided that soldiers should not be taxed on their combat pay.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, contrary to all the rhetoric around this legislation, H.R. 6213 does not terminate the Title 17 loan guarantee program. In fact, when Republicans were offered a chance to end this Bush-era initiative in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the motion failed by a vote of 3-39. Instead, H.R. 6213 retains the $34 billion of existing loan guarantee authority--and then arbitrarily limits the competition for that authority to the roughly 50 projects that had submitted their applications before the end of 2011. In other words, under this bill, a loan guarantee commitment can be issued in 2020 to a company that applied in 2010--but any better, cheaper or more promising proposal that arises between now and then need not apply. This is the worst kind of governing by bumper sticker, and it has unfortunately become emblematic of the Republican majority in the 112th Congress. Mr. Chair, we can and should be investing in clean energy. We simply cannot afford to cede this rapidly growing market to the Chinese and other international competitors. In that regard, the Title 17 loan guarantee program has caused tens of billions of dollars in private capital to be invested in clean energy projects. It has helped double renewable energy generation. It has created 60,000 jobs and saved over 300 million gallons of gasoline. And it has done all of this with a default rate of 3 percent, which is less than the half the default rate in the federal student loan program whose current interest rates a bipartisan majority in this House recently voted to extend. It is time to stop demagoguing and time to start governing. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2012. Clearly, we must work to ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement communities continue to have the tools they need to protect American citizens. It is critically important, however, that in our effort to defend the liberties we cherish, we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect. This legislation, in its current form, still contains flaws which fail to ensure robust oversight of this program. Specifically, some of the amendments offered by my colleagues on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to increase transparency and shorten the sunset should have been included in the final bill. Unfortunately, we are considering this legislation under a closed rule, and no amendments can be offered to the full House. We must work to reauthorize this program in a balanced way that provides our experts with the authority they need to protect Americans while upholding the values enshrined in our Constitution. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate to reform these provisions so that we don't need to make the false choice between security and freedom.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this Continuing Resolution will fund the government through March 27, 2013, avoid a government shutdown and maintain critical programs and services for the American people. It is not in every respect the bill I would have written, but it is consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011 and reflects the bipartisan and bicameral agreement that is possible at this time. H.J. Res. 117 funds the government at an annualized rate of $1.047 trillion, meets the President's request for Overseas Contingency Operations and includes modest increases for activities including cybersecurity, wildfire suppression and processing disability claims at the Veterans Administration. While I am gratified that today's legislation also includes a clean, six-month extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, I regret that H.J. Res 117 continues to block common sense light bulb efficiency standards that would benefit consumers and the environment. Additionally, after two years of frozen pay, I believe federal workers should receive President Obama's recommended .5% cost- of-living adjustment at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is really quite a charade we're engaged in here today on the floor of the House of Representatives. Let's just flash back a year ago to how we got to this spot. At that time, our Republican colleagues threatened that the United States would default on its full faith and credit, that we wouldn't pay the bills that we already incurred, that this Congress had already voted for, and threatened to tank the economy unless we passed their version of the budget, the Ryan budget, the budget that came out of the House Budget Committee. In order to prevent the United States from defaulting, everybody got together--the House, the Senate, and the President--and they passed the Budget Control Act. To hear our Republican colleagues today, you'd think they had nothing to do with the Budget Control Act. We heard the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, on television the other day not wanting to associate himself with that. The reality is he voted for it. The Speaker of the House said he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Here's the Speaker of the House after we passed the Budget Control Act: I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy. Now we are faced with the consequences of the Budget Control Act. What did it do? Two things: It cut spending, discretionary spending over 10 years by a trillion dollars by putting in spending caps, and it created a sequester process. There's agreement in this House that allowing the meat-ax sequester agreements to take place would really be a stupid thing to do. There's agreement on that. The issue is: How do we replace that? How do we achieve a similar amount of deficit reduction to replace that sequester? We hear our Republican colleagues say there is no leadership from the President; they haven't heard any alternatives. That's just not true. There are lots of alternatives that have been put on the table. They just don't like the alternatives. And do you know why? Because the Democratic alternatives to the sequester, and the one put forward by the President, takes the same balanced approach that's been recommended by bipartisan commissions. They say that in order to tackle our deficit we should make additional cuts. But we should also eliminate a lot of special interest tax breaks for Big Oil companies. We should ask the very wealthy to go back to paying a little bit more in taxes, about what they were paying when President Clinton was President, the last time we balanced our budget. The President has submitted that. In fact, a year ago the President sent down a plan right here on how we could take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Just yesterday in the Rules Committee, on behalf of my Democratic colleagues, we proposed a substitute that would totally have replaced the sequester, again through a mix of cuts, cutting some of the excessive agriculture subsidies, but also raising revenue by cutting some of the big breaks for Big Oil companies and asking the wealthiest to chip in a little bit more. Our Republican colleagues who say they want a big open debate on the floor here, they denied us even a vote on that amendment. We're not going to get to vote today on that amendment. Instead, we're voting on this resolution that, even if we pass it and the Senate passes it and the President would sign it, it would do nothing about the sequester-- nothing. That's why I said this is a charade. We had an option to bring to the floor of this House a real substitute proposal that, if we passed it, it would have removed the sequester, made sure that there are no cuts to defense and nondefense under the sequester. We don't get to vote on that today. Instead, we're voting on something that is totally meaningless. They say they're going to ask the President to submit a report to the Congress. He's already done it. He did it a year ago. They just don't like it because it takes a balanced approach, because it does ask Big Oil companies to give up some of their big taxpayer subsidies. So, Mr. Speaker, let's end the charade. The moment our Republican colleagues come to the conclusion that it's more important to protect defense spending than it is to protect special interest tax breaks for Big Oil companies, we can move on and deal with this in a balanced way, the same way bipartisan commissions have recommended. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. Mr. West, when Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan and all our Republican colleagues cite those figures about passthroughs, that includes companies like Bain Capital. It also includes some Fortune 100 companies. The President has put forward a proposal that says let's act right now to extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people and 97 percent of all passthrough businesses. It's true we don't think that Bain Capital needs a big additional tax break when we've got a big deficit that we should deal with in what we think should be a balanced way. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore