Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement for H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, a bill of which I am a cosponsor. In addition to imposing sanctions on anyone found to be guilty of committing or contributing to the repression or abuse of the human rights of the Syrian people, this measure also continues the congressional efforts to apply pressure to the government of Iran for its nuclear enrichment activities. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the president announced the application of new sanctions on the Iranian oil industry and on Chinese and Iraqi banks for helping Iran to circumvent the global sanctions regime. These sanctions are a part of an escalating series of penalties against Iran. In June, the U.S. imposed a round of sanctions targeting any foreign country that buys Iranian oil. Then, in early July, the EU, a major market for Iranian oil, put in place a complete embargo of oil imports from the country. Since the effort began, Iranian oil production has declined by a million barrels a day, its exports have fallen by about 50 percent and its currency has plunged more than 40 percent against the dollar. Today, the House meets to further tighten the sanctions on Iran's energy, shipping and insurance sectors. This package of sanctions will be the most comprehensive passed to date. Virtually all of Iran's energy, financial, and transportation sectors will be subject to U.S. sanctions and any company that does business in these sectors will run the risk of losing access to U.S. markets. The economic sanctions imposed on Iran have succeeded in bringing the Iranians to the negotiating table. It remains to be seen whether the Iranians are simply engaged in stall-tactics or are willing to end their effort to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. As President Obama has made clear, it is unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The U.N. Security Council has passed numerous resolutions demanding that Iran comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and suspend its nuclear enrichment activities. The IAEA has repeatedly found Iran to be in violation of the U.N. resolutions. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to the State of Israel, a country the President of Iran has stated should ``be wiped off the map.'' A nuclear Iran could also trigger a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East that would further destabilize an already volatile region. It is in the national security interests of the United States to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. By most accounts, the sanctions passed by Congress have ratcheted up pressure on the Iranian government. But Iran continues to increase its stockpile of enriched uranium. This bi-partisan measure is necessary to give the President additional tools to penalize the Iranian regime for its continual refusal to heed the objections of the international community. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this conference agreement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve is by charter and design an independent central bank. At the same time, because ours is a system of checks and balances, the Federal Reserve's operations are governed by congressional mandate and subject to strict accountability and oversight. Specifically, the Federal Reserve has for many years been audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as independent, third-party firms. Additionally, pursuant to the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve testifies before both chambers of Congress twice a year. Minutes of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee are made public 6 weeks after its meetings occur, and the Fed publishes updated balance sheets on its website weekly. Moreover, the recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law further enhanced the Federal Reserve's transparency by expanding the types of audits GAO must conduct and by mandating disclosure of transactions at the Federal Reserve's discount window. In light of these facts, the issue in H.R. 459 is not whether the Fed should be audited. It already is. Instead, what is at issue in this legislation is whether the Fed's internal deliberations concerning the formation of monetary policy should be made public. This is the equivalent of asking whether Supreme Court justices' pre-decisional debate should be made public--and it is a bad idea for the same reason. It would have a predictably counterproductive and chilling effect on that debate and ultimately undermine the Fed's independence. Time and time again, history has shown that central banks whose decision-making falls under the influence of short-term political considerations quickly lose all credibility with the public and with the credit markets. This cannot be allowed to happen. It's ironic that most, if not all, of the information proponents of this legislation cite to justify its enactment is in the public domain because of the transparency measures that are already in place. Indeed, many advocates of H.R. 459 are avowedly less interested in striking the right balance between independence and accountability at the Federal Reserve than they are in abolishing the Federal Reserve altogether--or in ending the Federal Reserve's dual mandate to achieve both stable prices and maximum employment. I am in neither camp. I support an independent Federal Reserve pursuing its congressionally directed dual mandate, subject to strict oversight and accountability--and that is why I oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, domestic oil production is at an 18 year high, and President Obama's ``All of the Above'' energy strategy has reduced our reliance on foreign oil from 57 percent of consumption during the last year of the Bush Administration to 45 percent today. We now have 50 percent more floating drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than we did before the BP oil spill--and more rigs operating in the United States than the rest of the world combined. The Administration's existing 2012-2017 offshore drilling lease plan makes more than 75 percent of our offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling, and the Interior Department reports that oil and gas companies already possess 26 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico containing 18 billion barrels of oil that have yet to be developed. Yet here we are for the eleventh time in the past eighteen months wasting valuable floor time on another drill bill that has absolutely zero chance of becoming law when our nation's fiscal cliff looms, and Americans are looking to their government for effective leadership so we can accelerate economic growth and put people back to work. These fundamental defects are further compounded by the conspicuous absence of any safety or royalty reform in this legislation, and the majority's insistence on gutting environmental review for the additional lease sales this legislation requires--including lease sales off the mid- Atlantic coast as early as 2013. I support the responsible development of our nation's oil and gas resources as part of a comprehensive ``All of the Above'' energy strategy that emphasizes a greater use of renewables, efficiency and other clean energy sources over time. The forced lease sales in this legislation do not constitute responsible development, and the ``Oil Above All'' strategy advanced by the majority in this legislation and throughout this Congress is ultimately a prescription for energy dependence and economic decline. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an incredible group of young ladies--proud members of the MSC Coyotes Green Under-14 Girls Soccer Club--who brought home to the great State of Maryland the National Championship. Yes, this team has reached the top of youth soccer. They may just be rising 9th and 10th graders--most of them residents of Montgomery County, Maryland--but they have already achieved in sports what most young athletes can only dream about. And they didn't get there without putting in the work. Being fast and strong and athletic are important, but putting in the work is what sets you apart from your competition. These young ladies trained endlessly--in rain, snow, extreme heat, and freezing cold--while staying focused on academics. They arrived in Rock Hill, SC last week as the sole representative of Region 1 (Maine to Virginia), and they left Rock Hill, SC as the top U14 girls club team in America. I rise to recognize these young ladies, their families, and their great coaches for all of their hard work, dedication, grit, and perseverance. The MSC Coyotes Green qualified for the National Championships after winning the Region 1 Championships in Lancaster, PA having to survive matches against some of the top ranked teams in America. They won this prestigious Regional Championship but not the easy way--the Coyotes won their semi-final and final matches in winner-take-all penalty kicks. The National Championships was a round-robin between the Final 4 teams in America from Maryland, California, Ohio, and Tennessee. To put the MSC Coyotes Green achievement in perspective, over 10,000 club teams competed for a chance to play in the Regional and National Championships. The National Championships round-robin started Wednesday, July 25, 2012 in Rock Hill, SC. The Coyotes Green tied their first match against Beach FC '97 from California 0-0 on Wednesday; lost their second match against Tennessee '98 Azzurri 2-0 on Thursday; and won their third match--a win or go home game--on Friday against Ambassador FC from Ohio 3-0. The Coyotes qualified for the Title Game and earned a rematch with Tennessee '98 Azzurri on Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. in Rock Hill, SC for the U14 Girls National Championship. It was a tough match, but the MSC Coyotes Green won 2-0, earning their spot as the nation's top U14 girls team. I would like to recognize the following MSC Coyotes Green players who will play--or already do play--for several Washington, DC and Maryland suburban high schools: 1 McKenzie McCaull, F, Linganore; 2 Naomi Gross, GK, B-CC; 3 Annika Jansa, M/D, Bullis; 5 Sara Johnston, D, Stone Ridge; 10 Paula Germino- Watnick, M/F, B-CC; 13 Julia Abbott, F, Good Counsel; 14 Cristina Valianatos, M, Walt Whitman; 15 Jade Ruiters, F/M, Holy Cross; 16 Amanda Wilson, D, Good Counsel; 20 Lindsay Wytkind, D, Walt Whitman; 21 Emma Anderson, F, Walt Whitman; 23 Kristen Darragh, GK, Poolesville; 25 Deena DeSilva, D, Magruder; 26 Kristen Bissell, M/F, Undecided; 27 Juliana Comer, M, Churchill; 28 Elizabeth Coletti, F, St. John's Catholic Prep; 29 Clare Severe, M/F, Walt Whitman; and 44 Julianne Keehan, F, Holy Cross. I also want to commend the two coaches who led them to victory--Alex Gould and Kevin Layton. It's not often that you can pause to recognize national champions in your congressional district. Today it is my privilege to recognize and congratulate the MSC Coyotes Green U14 Girls Team, the best U14 girls soccer team in America.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for all of his good work here. Mr. Speaker, let's start with a point of agreement. We should simplify the Tax Code. We should reform the Tax Code. It's an overly complicated mess, and it needs to be streamlined and reformed. We could start with some really simple things like getting rid of the special tax breaks and giveaways to Big Oil companies, but our Republican colleagues on this House floor have voted time and again against that. What we should not do is what we are hearing from a lot of our colleagues today, which is use the language of tax reform as a Trojan horse to provide another huge windfall to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of America, and yet that is exactly the direction that this bill takes us in. The main principle enshrined in this bill is the old Republican principle of trickle-down economics, the failed idea that we need to give more tax cuts to the folks at the very, very top, and somehow those benefits are going to trickle-down to everybody else. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is the American people have seen this movie before. That's no longer a theoretical idea. We ran a real-world experiment on that idea. It was called the 8 years of the Bush administration. We had tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy in 2001 and 2003. At the end of those 8 years, what was the state of the economy? Net loss of private sector jobs, less than zero. The one number that did go up, it wasn't jobs, it was the deficit. That number went through the roof, and the rest of the country is left to pick up the tab. And that's what the American people are beginning to focus on, Mr. Speaker: that these tax cuts for the wealthy are not a free lunch for the rest of the country but that they come at the expense of everyone and everything else. Because the math is pretty simple. If you refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay one penny more for the purpose of deficit reduction, for everybody else it gets harder. Seniors on Medicare have to pay more even though their median income is under $23,000. It means deep cuts to investments in our economy and our kids' education, in science and research, and in infrastructure. Now with today's bill, our Republican colleagues, as Mr. Levin said, are doubling down on an idea that we know does not work. They're providing another round of tax cuts to millionaires and directly asking middle class taxpayers to pick up the tab. Let's do the math. Let's do the math--that's what we try and do in the Budget Committee. When you drop the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, first of all, you provide huge breaks to the folks at the very top, but that loses $4 trillion over 10 years, in other words, the deficit grows by $4 trillion. Now, our Republican colleagues say, Oh, no, we don't want to do that. We really care about the deficit. We're going to make up those $4 trillion through tax reform. Of course they won't tell us one thing about what they would do in tax reform. But the good news is the Tax Policy Center, an independent group here in Washington, has told us what the Romney plan would do, a plan very similar to this plan. What they make clear is that when you start removing all those deductions and all the benefits, for example, for health plans or for mortgage interest deduction, what you end up doing is providing a big tax increase to middle-income taxpayers, financing tax breaks for the folks at the top by increasing the burden on----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say: Let us come up with a tax reform plan that works for all of the American people. Let's come up with a plan that will help grow our economy from the middle out, not this failed idea of trickle-down economics from the top down. That is what this debate is all about. Because what we want to do through tax reform is empower the middle class and empower small business men and women. You do not empower the middle class by creating a situation where, by giving tax breaks to the wealthy, you increase the deficit for the rest of the country. Because when you increase the deficit, you're asking everybody else to pay for those breaks at the very top. And people will pay by fewer investments in education, fewer investments in science and research, fewer investments that are important to empower our economy. And everybody else will be left to pick up this deficit tab while folks at the very top get another break. Let's not do that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That's the simple math of the situation. Now, I know that we've heard from the Romney campaign that that's a liberal think tank. Well, here's what the Romney campaign spokesman said about an earlier analysis from the same Tax Policy Center when they liked the results. Then they called it an ``objective third-party analysis''--Romney spokesman of an earlier Tax Policy Center analysis. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a group here in Washington that does good, nonpartisan work, and that is the result that they found. And it makes common sense; you're trying to make up $4 or $5 trillion through tax reform, you're going to switch that burden. Now, we've also heard that this is somehow going to help ``make it in America,'' that this is going to incentivize companies to do more business here in America. The reality is just the opposite in this bill. You move to a pure territorial system, your slogan might as well be ``Make It Overseas: Offshore American Jobs.'' Again, let's just look to the analysis done by another nonpartisan group. Mr. Levin has talked about the Joint Committee on Taxation analysis. They've already said that if you move to a pure territorial system, ``you will erode our domestic tax base and increase our deficits.'' Why will you erode our domestic tax base? Because more companies will ship their investments and operations overseas. That means more American jobs overseas. In fact, another nonpartisan study found that this particular proposal, Republican proposal, which Mr. Romney also supports, would create 800,000 jobs. The problem is they found it would create 800,000 jobs overseas, not here in America, by setting up companies in places like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6233, the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act. I agree that we must take steps to assist farmer and rancher families affected by extreme drought conditions, but doing so at the expense of national conservation programs is a shortsighted approach. Conservation programs help preserve farms and ranchlands, improve water quality, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitats. These funds have been essential to Maryland farmers in protecting the quality of the Chesapeake Bay. Maintaining funding for these programs and providing farmers and ranchers with the opportunity to do long-term conservation planning is one of the best investments we can make to mitigate the impact of future droughts and disasters. Instead of pitting disaster assistance against conservation programs, let's focus on our efforts on reauthorizing a five-year farm bill. Farmers in my district and across the Nation agree that a farm bill reauthorization will give them the clarity and economic certainty they really need to plan for their futures. I urge my colleagues to reject today's bill and move forward with passing comprehensive reauthorization.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3803, which unfairly targets the District of Columbia for a prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks, with no exception to protect a woman's health. This bill is simply another in a long line of attempts by House GOP to undermine a woman's fundamental right to choose. H.R. 3803 directly contradicts Roe v. Wade by prohibiting pre- viability abortions and making no exception to protect a woman's health. The narrow exception in this bill that allows for an abortion when it's necessary to save a woman's life is completely inadequate. H.R. 3803 does not include an exception for abortions that would prevent severe harm to a woman's health, or for survivors of incest or rape. Finally, the nature of this legislation derides the democratic process by empowering politicians to make health decisions for citizens that they do not represent. The singling out of District citizens--who have never had the opportunity to elect a voting Member of this body-- is a cynical move that ignores their wishes and undermines the locally elected City Council and Mayor. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, once again the House finds itself considering a bill that unfairly targets the hard working public servants who every day are providing a wide array of public services from helping to nurse our wounded veterans, to discovering cures and treatments for diseases that plague millions of American families, to ensuring aviation safety, to protecting our borders, public safety and the food supply. Over the last two years, our Republican colleagues have repeatedly brought legislation to the floor to slash the pay and benefits of civil servants in order to protect special tax breaks for the super wealthy and special interests. Obviously, all Americans should pay their taxes, and those who fail to do so should be penalized. But federal employees should not be denied the full complement of due process rights that are available to any other American. This bill would result in the firing of federal employees who may be legitimately contesting a tax liability through the established process. Moreover, by linking the firing of a federal employee to a lien, this bill would result in the firing of individuals who are already in the process of satisfying their tax obligation. There are already laws and regulations on the books that address how tax debt should be handled and how federal employees who are delinquent on their payments should be disciplined. In 2002, the IRS asked Congress to change the standard for determining when an agency was mandated to fire employees. Rather than firing every employee who fails to properly file their tax return, IRS created a hierarchy of penalties based on the seriousness and willfulness of the offense. This bill throws out that process and treats all delinquencies as if they were willful and deliberate. Comparatively, federal employees have a compliance rate that is higher than the average American taxpayer. In 2010, 3.35 percent of federal employees were delinquent in their tax payments. That same year, the delinquency rate for the total universe of American taxpayers was 7.4 percent. Instead of making public servants the target of new, unnecessary and unfair legislation, we should instead be focusing on uniform ways to strengthen and better enforce existing laws and regulations governing tax delinquency.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's very important everyone understand the choice that's facing the House today. The Democrats will offer an amendment that will immediately extend tax relief to 100 percent of American people. The Senate has already passed that proposal; and if our Republican colleagues vote for it today, we can send it down to the White House, the President will sign it today. Someone asked what we're going to do today. We could provide immediate tax relief to 98 percent of the American people. Now, let's be clear. The Democratic proposal provides tax relief to everybody up to $250,000. What our Republican colleagues are saying is they will deny tax relief to 98 percent of the American people, unless people making over $250,000 get a bonus, an extra tax cut. In other words, unless the top 2 percent get an extra tax cut, nobody else gets anything. It gets worse. We've heard a lot of talk here about small businesses, that we need to adopt the Republican plan in order to support small businesses. It's just not true. The Democratic proposal, according to the nonpartisan Independent Joint Tax Committee, provides tax relief to 97 percent of the businesses that we're talking about here. In fact, they point out that the other 3 percent of businesses include about 20,000 pass-through businesses that make over $50 million a year. Now, they may be good businesses, but these are not mom-and-pop businesses. The language we're hearing from our Republican colleagues would use small businesses as a cover to providing breaks for firms like Fortune 100 Pipeline Company Enterprise Products Partners; PricewaterhouseCoopers, good business, not a mom-and-pop; KKR Investment Banking; and guess what, Bain Capital, Bain Capital, the kind of small business that our Republican colleagues are trying to protect. This is all really in service to the trickle-down ideology. We tried it in the Bush administration. At the end of 8 years we actually saw a net job loss.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We tried trickle-down. We lived it; we saw a net job loss. But who picked up the tab? The rest of the country because it drove a huge hole in our deficit; and in order to deal with that, if we don't ask folks at the top to pay a little bit more, the rest of the country ends up picking up the tab. That's just not right, and it doesn't help the economy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am taking this occasion to recognize the outstanding achievements of Jeanne J. Grimmett, a career legislative attorney with the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, who will be retiring from CRS on August 31, after 41 years of distinguished government service. Jeanne, for decades, has been the leading legal expert on trade law at CRS, and she has made invaluable contributions to the work of the U.S. Congress in this critical policy area. After receiving a B.A. from the College of New Rochelle in New York, Jeanne began her government service at the Library of Congress in 1971. She obtained a J.D. from George Washington University in 1978, and joined CRS that same year. She chose to specialize in trade law and related subjects soon thereafter and received an L.L.M. from the London School of Economics in 1986. During her career, Jeanne has prepared numerous memoranda, reports, and provided briefings for Members and Congressional committees, working collaboratively with colleagues in other divisions of CRS, while contributing legal analysis for the Congress during the key trade debates that were held over the years. Jeanne was also a section head in the Courts Section of the American Law Division for several years, coordinating requests and reviewing work related to the Iran-Contra investigation and various judicial nominations. As a legislative attorney, Jeanne provided direct support to Members, Senators, and major Congressional committees on the complex legal issues related to U.S. participation in the NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and various U.S. free trade agreements, most recently the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The depth and breadth of her expertise is demonstrated by noting the subjects she has addressed for the Congress during her tenure at CRS: trade with nonmarket economies; dispute settlement under trade agreements; trade and environmental issues, including climate change; antidumping and countervailing duty law and other trade remedies; customs and country-of-origin legislation; Federal and State economic sanctions; trade sanctions reform; foreign assistance and foreign public debt authorities; export controls administered by various U.S. agencies; trade in encryption technology; the scope of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction and, in particular, jurisdiction over foreign defendants; investment treaties and investor-State dispute settlement; and the U.S. law of international agreements in general. Jeanne also contributed to the House Ways and Means Committee ``Blue Book'' of trade laws, as well as to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee print, Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, the primary reference source on this subject. She has also mentored new attorneys in trade law and given numerous presentations on trade law subjects in the American Law Division's semi-annual Federal Law Update series for Members of Congress and their legal staff. Jeanne Grimmett has provided exemplary service to the Congress throughout her distinguished career at CRS. I believe that all in the Congress who have benefitted from her expertise and counsel join me in wishing her the very best in the years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join m colleagues in honoring and remembering all of the victims of the tragic shootings in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater last Friday, July 20, 2012, and to condemn the senseless and abhorrent violence that took their lives or left them wounded. The victims' friends and families can count on the unyielding support of their fellow Americans as we come together to mourn the loss and heal the wounds caused by the heinous acts of that day. We must also recognize the heroic efforts made by those inside the theater to protect others. Their courage, along with the quick and decisive actions of the hundreds of first responders, law enforcement officials, and hospital workers, undoubtedly saved lives. I join my colleagues in offering my thoughts and our prayers to those touched by this horrible event.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, this legislation is an amalgam of seven dangerously misguided bills designed to shut down a breathtaking number of safeguards and protections citizens rely on--from the quality of health care seniors receive to the safety of infant formula babies drink to the benefits our veterans have earned. As former Republican Congressman Sherry Boehlert has warned: ``It's difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of . . . (this) . . . bill.'' The core of H.R. 4078 proposes to freeze most regulatory action until the nation's unemployment rate hits 6 percent--as if the quality of seniors' health care, the safety of infant formula or the availability of veterans' benefits should depend on where the nation's unemployment rate is. Another provision of H.R. 4078 would block so called ``midnight rules'' issued in the final days of an outgoing administration--without any apparent recognition that the offshore drilling bill the majority brought to the floor of the House just yesterday was itself largely proposed as a ``midnight'' regulation in the final days of the Bush Administration. Still other provisions in H.R. 4078 would tie up the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with additional paperwork, thereby diverting already scarce resources from other critical functions, like ensuring transparency and accountability in our financial markets. Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to regulatory reform. Where a regulation is truly wasteful, unnecessary or duplicative, we should fix it or get rid of it. But, like the comedy of errors surrounding the numerous typos leading up to consideration of this bill, H.R. 4078 is a poorly conceived, hastily thrown together mess. The American people deserve better.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 5856, the FY2013 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Last summer, Congress and the President enacted the bipartisan Budget Control Act, BCA, a difficult compromise by both Democrats and Republicans. As a result, caps on both discretionary and defense spending were significantly tightened for Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations. Because this bill fails the test of balance and funds billions of dollars of unnecessary programs within the Defense Department, while disregarding the caps set forth by the BCA, I cannot support it in its current form. I hope to support this bill when it returns from the Senate. I would refer my colleagues to the Budget Control Act and to Section 302, enforcement of budget goals. It's right there in plain English what the defense appropriation number will be. That was the Budget Control Act that was supported and voted on by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In fact, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, said last year when we passed it, and I quote: ``Tough choices will have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring shared results.'' He went on to say, ``The Appropriations Committee has already started making tough decisions on spending and will continue under the spending limits and guidelines provided in this bill,'' meaning the Budget Control Act. That was August 1st of last year. The Chairman of the full Committee was right last year but the bill that's before us violates that bipartisan agreement. As a result of that violation, the Defense Appropriation Bill exceeds significantly what was requested by the Defense Department. The reality is the other bills that are coming through the Appropriations Committee are taking much deeper cuts--cuts to education, cuts to affordable health care, cuts to public safety-- because of the funding increases in this defense bill. In other words, our investment in jobs, and the economy, and our kids future is being slashed as a direct result of the fact this defense bill exceeds the spending level set in the Budget Control Act agreement Mr. Chairman, I would refer our colleagues to the statements made by Admiral Mullen, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Mullen pointed out that our military strength depends on our economic strength and our economic strength depends on our long- term fiscal health. Admiral Mullen said, ``Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.'' He went on to say, ``with the increasing defense budget, which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn't forced us to prioritize. It hasn't forced us to do the analysis.'' We can no longer go along with business as usual if we are going to get our fiscal house in order. That is why this House agreed to the Budget Control Act last summer, and it's unfortunate that this bill comes to the floor in violation of the agreement, in violation of an understanding that in order to get our fiscal house in order, we had to make tough decisions on defense and non-defense alike. And by violating the agreement in this regard, what the Committee is saying is they are not willing to make really tough decisions. In fact, they're making irresponsible decisions with respect to the nondefense domestic spending. I agree with Admiral Mullen who said we all need to share in this responsibility. I agree with what my Republican Colleagues said last year when we passed the Budget Control Act. Let's stick to an agreement and let the American people know that when this body comes to an understanding after a hard fought compromise, we stick with it for the public good. The Defense Appropriations bill provides $606 billion in defense spending in FY13. It includes $518.1 billion in funding for non-war related expenses. It also provides an additional $13.7 billion for Military Personnel Programs and $63.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance Programs. I am also pleased that the bill provides a requested pay raise for military personnel and supports critical funding for the DoD Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program and the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program. However, the bill provides billions of dollars in funding that the Department of Defense says it neither requested nor needs. For example, it continues to fund unnecessary aircraft programs that the Defense Department did not allot for in its budget this year, and spends $138 million to resurrect C-27J contracts that the Air Force decided not to renew. Many other wasteful items that are unnecessary to our national defense are included at the expense of national funding priorities that directly impact our country's future economic growth, including investments in education, seniors, and research and infrastructure. During this difficult fiscal period we have to be much smarter and more efficient about how we shape our defense budget. Throughout this debate, I have made clear that we must take a balanced approach to cutting the budget including eliminating unnecessary spending. There is no doubt that Congress has a responsibility to pass a Defense Appropriations bill which reflects a commitment to the millions of dedicated men and women and their families who sacrifice to keep our country safe. However, as testimony before the Budget Committee and House Armed Services Committee has made clear, we can reduce defense spending even as we continue to provide for our men and women in uniform, for our veterans and for their families, without compromising national security. Unfortunately, the FY13 Defense Appropriations bill upends the balance painstakingly designed by the BCA and appropriates funds unnecessarily to some programs at the expense of other high-priority programs. The unrequested funding provided in this legislation will result in direct cuts to such national priorities as education, health care, research and development, and vital job training. I am also concerned that this bill deprives deserving employees of the Department of Defense of a modest cost-of-living adjustment by not providing for a civilian pay raise of .5 percent, as proposed by the Administration. Mr. Chair, there is no higher priority than providing for the security of our country. However, during these difficult economic times, we have to be smarter and more efficient in how we shape our defense budget. In the end, the strength of our military depends on the strength of our economy. If we don't reduce our long-term deficit and get our fiscal house in order, we will weaken our capacity to fund a strong military. At the end of the day, this bill falls short of accomplishing that objective.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I'm very proud to join with my colleague from California (Ms. Lee) and Mr. Smith, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, in support of this amendment. This amendment is, in fact, different than every other amendment that has been offered on this bill. This amendment is very simple and very clear in its purpose: it's to make sure that this Congress complies with the Budget Control Act agreement that was set by this body on a bipartisan vote just last year. I would just refer my colleagues to the Budget Control Act and refer them to section 302, Enforcement of Budget Goals. It's right there in plain English what the 050 number will be, the Defense appropriation number will be. That was the Budget Control Act that was supported and voted on by the chairman of the Budget Committee, by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and by the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In fact, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, said last year, when we passed it: Tough choices will have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring shared results. He went on to say: The Appropriations Committee has already started making tough decisions on spending and will continue to under the spending limits and guidelines provided in this bill--meaning the Budget Control Act. That was August 1 of last year. The chairman of the full Appropriations Committee was right last year, but the bill that's coming to the floor today is in violation of that bipartisan agreement. As a result of that violation, while the Defense appropriation bill exceeds significantly what was requested by our own Defense Department as what was necessary to meet our national security needs--because this bill dramatically increased that level above what was requested--the reality is the other bills that are coming through the Appropriations Committee are taking very deep cuts--deep cuts to education, deep cuts to health care programs. In fact, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, described that Labor-H bill as one of the most partisan bills that he has seen. That's true, and that is a direct result of the fact that this bill that's before us today dramatically explodes the Budget Control Act agreements. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would just refer the body to the statements made by Admiral Mullen recently, who of course was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointing out that our military strength depends on our economic strength and our economic strength depends on our long-term fiscal health and the soundness of our fiscal policy. And I quote Admiral Mullen, who said: Our national debt is our biggest national security threat. He went on to say: Everybody must do their part. He said: We can no longer afford to spend taxpayer resources without doing the analysis--this is Admiral Mullen--without ensuring every dollar is efficiently and effectively invested. We can no longer go along with business as usual if we are going to get our fiscal house in order. That is why this body, on a bipartisan basis, agreed to the Budget Control Act. So it's very unfortunate that this bill now comes to the floor in violation of an agreement, in violation of an understanding that in order to get our fiscal house in order, we had to make tough decisions on defense and nondefense alike. By violating the agreement in this regard, what the committee is saying is they're willing to make really tough decisions. In fact, they make irresponsible decisions with respect to the nondefense domestic spending, and we doubt we'll even see a Labor-H bill on the floor of this House, it's so bad. The reason it's so bad is because, in part, that Budget Control Act was violated and so much was added to the Defense Department, again, as my colleagues have said, more than requested by our military leadership and more than requested by the Defense Department. I agree with Admiral Mullen, who said we all need to share in this responsibility. I agree with what my Republican colleague said just last year when we passed the Budget Control Act. Let's stick to an agreement and let the people know that when this body comes to an understanding after a hard compromise, we stick with it for the public good. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start on the points of agreement. We agree with this piece of legislation. As we said, it passed the Budget Committee unanimously. What it does is ask for some more detailed information on the impact of the across-the-board sequester scheduled to take place in January. The Senate also agrees with that. Let's make no mistake, there was an amendment on the Senate side, a bipartisan amendment by Senator Patty Murray of Washington State and Senator McCain, asking for additional information. There was also agreement that we don't need more information to understand that the across-the-board sequester cuts would have a very negative impact on the economy and on defense and on important nondefense investments that are important to the American people. The issue really is what are we going to do about it. We have proposed an alternative in this House. We proposed an alternative in the Budget Committee, and it didn't pass. We asked for this whole House to have a chance to vote on an alternative that had a balanced approach that included cuts, but also additional revenues from closing tax breaks and loopholes, and we were denied that opportunity for a vote over here. Let's be very clear about what Senator Reid has said and what the President has said on a number of these issues, both the tax issue, as well as the sequestration issue that we're debating today. The President of the United States has been very clear that he would like today for the Congress to pass legislation to extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people, all the middle class tax cuts. He wants us to get it done today. In fact, what some people don't realize is that those tax cuts would also benefit folks at the very top. In fact, it provides tax relief to 100 percent of Americans compared to current law. Let's get that done. If we agree on it, let's act now. The same is true with the sequester. The keys to this lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues. We've agreed that part of the solution is cuts. We did a trillion dollars in cuts last year, 100 percent cuts. We've also said we can do additional cuts, but we should also deal with the revenue side of the equation if we're serious about the deficit. The chairman talked about our use of the word ``balance.'' It's the same use that the Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-Domenici bipartisan commissions have made. What they have said is any serious approach to reducing the debt, in this case replacing the sequester, requires cuts, yes, but also revenues. The reality is, in this House of Representatives, 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed a pledge to this fellow by the name of Grover Norquist. What that pledge says is you can't eliminate one penny of tax breaks, you can't eliminate one dollar of taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies, or ask folks who are making more than a million dollars a year to pay one more dollar for the purpose of deficit reduction. They won't do it. Nor does that pledge allow them to take a dollar tax subsidy away for the purpose of defense spending. We hear a lot of talk about the importance of defense spending. We agree. Secretary Panetta has talked about it. We think we should pay for it. Rather than just talk about defense spending, why don't we also pay for it? We have put two wars on our national credit card: Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of us proposed that we help pay for those as we go so we wouldn't be leaving the bill to future generations, to the children of the troops that are fighting those wars. We should pay for them. But, no, those two wars went on the credit card. Now we're talking about defense. The Armed Services Committee has a hearing today on the impact of defense. As we've said, we agree that we don't want to see that. But when faced with the simple choice of cutting more tax breaks for oil companies or asking folks at the very top to pay a little bit more for defense and to reduce the deficit, no, they won't touch that. Let's understand the underlying issue here, both on the tax issues at the end of the year, which we can solve today if our Republican colleagues will stop holding 98 percent of the American taxpayers hostage until they get a continuation of the tax breaks for the folks at the very top, and we can deal with the sequester today if our colleagues are willing to take the balanced approach recommended by every bipartisan commission. That's what's at issue. Mr. Speaker, let me close with this. We've heard a lot of talk about how asking the folks at the very top to pay a little more would hurt the economy. The reality is we've tried the trickle-down theory. It's in place right now. We tried it for 8 years under the previous administration. The last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the Clinton administration in 2001. Then-President Bush came in with back-to-back tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy. What happened at the end of the 8 years? We lost private sector jobs. So much for the theory that tax breaks for the folks at the very top trickle down and lift everybody up. They lifted the yachts, but the boats ran aground, and that's the reality. That's what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues. When it comes right down to it, we've been willing to make some tough cuts, and we're willing to make more. But because of this pledge or other reasons, our Republican colleagues refused to deal with the deficit in a balanced way. They refused to ask folks at the very top to chip in a little bit more to reduce our deficits and to help pay for defense. Let's take action today to prevent the cuts, not just to defense, but to non-defense. It's interesting. I hear our Republican colleagues talk about the jobs created by defense, that's true. You know, building aircraft carriers creates jobs. Somehow building aircraft carriers creates jobs that building roads and bridges doesn't. The President has a jobs bill that's been sitting in this House of Representatives since September, a major boost in infrastructure. We have 14 percent unemployment in the construction industry. We have roads, bridges, and transit systems in need of repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation a D, grade D. It's a win/win. Let's spend more there, boost jobs and the economy, do a job that needs to be done. But no, you know, cutting defense spending and work on tanks, that will hurt jobs, but it's okay not to fund the President's infrastructure proposal to put people back to work building bridges and roads. Let's have a rational conversation here, Mr. Speaker, about what works and what doesn't work, and how we can take this balanced approach to reducing our deficit and eliminating replacing the sequester so we can avoid the cuts to both defense and non-defense. I look forward to getting the information called for by this piece of legislation. OMB is actually already crunching the numbers. There are lots of details, I hear, but our time here would be best spent putting in place a plan to replace the sequester rather than simply asking for more information. More information is good. Solving the problem is better. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. As the chairman of the Budget Committee said, it passed unanimously out of the Budget Committee. I believe that more information is better than less. I also believe, and from the comments I've heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we also agree that we have enough information to know right now today that an across-the-board, meat-ax approach to reducing the deficit--a sequester--is a reckless way to deal with our budget. We've heard a lot about the impact of the cuts on defense. Secretary Panetta has talked about those. We've heard a lot less about the impact of the cuts on other important investments, such as those in biomedical research. A coalition recently reported that the cuts to the National Institutes of Health alone would cut 33,000 jobs. That means fewer people investigating cures and treatments to diseases that plague every American family. That's just one small example on the nondefense side. But, Madam Speaker, I believe, given what we know, we should be focused today and every day on avoiding the sequester. In the Budget Committee proceedings, the Democrats offered an alternative approach. I've got it right here in my hand. It called for a balanced approach to replacing the sequester, the kind of balanced approach that every bipartisan commission that has looked at our deficit challenge has recommended. It included a combination of cuts, such as direct payments in excessive farm subsidies. It also included cuts to things like big oil companies, eliminating taxpayer subsidies. That plan would totally replace the sequester for 1 year; and it wouldn't have to have the deficit, the impact that we've heard about. So great to get more information, may have a unanimous vote here today in the House; but let's take a balanced approach to reducing our deficits, and let's take a balanced approach to replacing the sequester. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments about the supercommittee. I think we all wished it had succeeded. It did not, but it was a privilege to serve with my colleague from Texas. Let me just make a quick correction on the math. I think everybody knows, under the Budget Control Act, which was enacted last September, we cut $1 trillion from the budget, 100 percent cuts. The alternative that the Democrats have proposed to the sequester takes a balanced approach of additional cuts, but also revenue. In fact, the 1-year proposal that we put forward puts additional cuts in direct payments, excessive subsidies under the farm bill. Yes, we also eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. Former President Bush testified that, when oil's over $50 a barrel, you don't need taxpayers shelling out dollars to encourage big oil companies to invest. So we think we should eliminate those subsidies to help remove the sequester, including the sequester on defense. Let's make no mistake. The reason we're here is that our Republican colleagues deliberately chose, as part of the sequester, to put defense spending on the chopping block along with other spending. That was the choice above an offer to deal with revenue as part of a sequester. And when the choice boiled down to cutting tax subsidies for oil companies and other special tax breaks or cutting defense, Republicans chose to put in the sequester cutting defense. Now, I know we have a hearing today in the Armed Services Committee. I see the distinguished chairman on the floor today. I have to commend him because he has said before that if he were faced with that choice he would take that mixed, more balanced approach. And that ultimately is what we're going to have to do. That's the approach that's been taken by every bipartisan commission that's looked at this challenge. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said, and I didn't find much that I disagreed with. We agree that we should replace the sequester, and we agree that it's a mistake to create the kind of uncertainty that's out there. Obviously, it has an impact, not just in the defense sector, but also in all of the other areas in which our Federal Government has activities. I would just say--and I want to make sure the chairman is on the floor now and has a chance to respond--that he demonstrated some leadership on this issue last fall because he was asked this question. He was asked if he had to put together a plan that included some revenue. He said, Yes, I understand that we've got to make cuts, but I'd rather include some revenue than deep cuts to defense. In fact, what he said was: We're going to have to stop repeating ideological talking points and address our budget problems comprehensively through smarter spending and increased revenue. When asked to choose between deeper cuts in defense and cutting some tax breaks, he said we should cut some tax breaks. That was last fall. That's exactly the kind of balanced approach that the Democrats put forward in the Budget Committee. The chairman of the committee asked for a specific plan. We had a vote on it in the Budget Committee. We wish that our colleagues would have supported it. It would have prevented the sequester from taking place for another year, and it would have eliminated all of the uncertainty the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just talked about. The reason that we haven't been able to move forward is that our Republican colleagues continue to insist on supporting these tax breaks for special interests and tax breaks for folks at the very top and that they refuse to eliminate those tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit or for the purpose of eliminating the sequester on defense and non-defense. That's why we are in the situation we are in right now. The keys to the lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues. We had the same proposal ready to bring to a vote before the whole House of Representatives as part of the reconciliation process. The Rules Committee didn't even allow our proposal to be made in order so that Members of this body could vote on it up or down. So, yes, let's get on with the main issue. Let's focus on replacing the sequester. Let's do it in a balanced way. I have to say, since the gentleman from Texas earlier referenced the comments of Senator Reid's, the majority leader, I've looked at the Senator's comments. The Senator's point was the same one I'm making here, which is that, if we are going to remove the sequester, we need to take a balanced approach. We need to include cuts. Again, it's important to remember we did $1 trillion in cuts--100 percent cuts--as part of the Budget Control Act, but we also need to include some revenue by eliminating some of these special interest tax breaks and by asking folks at the very top of the income ladder to pay a little bit more for our national defense and for reducing our deficit. That is the underlying issue here. I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was one other gentleman who said he was on his way. He's not here yet. If he is not here by the time you finish, we will close.