Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my warmest regards and great appreciation to Ambassador Jones-Bos for her successful efforts to reinforce the strong ties between the people of the United States and the people of the Netherlands. For four years, Ambassador Jones-Bos has served the Dutch people with energy and grace in a time of great tumult for both the Dutch and American people. During her tenure, our two peoples have stood side-by- side on the battlefields of Afghanistan and as partners in the aftermath of global financial crisis. Throughout these challenges, Ambassador Jones-Bos has been a poised and unwavering advocate for her country and strong ally to the United States. Through her educational efforts and through her sound advice at key times, Ambassador Jones-Bos has played a major diplomatic role in the most significant events of our bi-lateral relationship over the last four years. The people of the Netherlands and the United States have shared a bond since the Dutch ship, the Half Moon, first sailed up the Hudson River more than 400 years ago. The Dutch helped settle and found New Amsterdam, Brooklyn, and Harlem. Their descendents rose to become Presidents of the United States and to build the great fortunes that helped America attain its stature as the most prosperous and powerful Nation this world has ever known. As an enthusiastic and committed joint-custodian of those ties since 2008, Ambassador Jones-Bos helped to strengthen our ability to confront with confidence the major challenges that our two countries face today. The strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship have made both our nations stronger and the world more secure as a consequence. As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on the Netherlands, on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of a grateful Nation, I thank Ambassador Jones-Bos for her dedicated service in support of the ties between the Dutch and American people and I congratulate her on her many successes as her country's representative to the U.S.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5882, the FY13 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill and to commend Chairmen Rogers and Crenshaw and Ranking Members Dicks and Honda for working together to bring this bi-partisan legislation to the floor. H.R. 5882 provides $3.3 billion for operations of the House of Representatives and joint operations with the U.S. Senate. The funding level is $34 million less than the current year and $190 million less than requested by those offices and agencies covered by the bill. H.R. 5882 freezes funding for House operations at the current level, while increasing funds for the U.S. Capitol Police, for the Government Accountability Office--which conducts oversight investigations for the Federal government, and for the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The funding provided by this measure is needed for the smooth and efficient operation of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It provides funds for phone service, for computers for postage and for every other resource necessary for the legislative branch of the American government to serve the people of the United States.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, at its best, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill sets forth a forward-looking agenda for our national investment in ports and waterways, clean energy development, environmental reclamation, scientific innovation, the responsible management of our nuclear weapons stockpile and our ongoing commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, in too many places, H.R. 5325 falls short of that forward-looking agenda. As Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, I fully understand the need to cut federal spending. Indeed, I supported last year's Budget Control Act, which cut about $1 trillion in federal spending over the next ten years. However, we also need to compete in clean energy, science, innovation and advanced manufacturing--and that is where this legislation misses the mark. For example, this legislation cuts funding for clean energy and energy efficiency by $374 million below FY 2012 and $886 million below the President's request. The budget for the Department of Energy's Office of Science is cut $64 million below current levels and $167 million below the President's request. And the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA E--which is doing transformational, potentially game-changing work on behalf of our nation's long term energy security--is provided only $200 million, which is $75 million below FY 2012 and $150 million below the President's request. Additionally, the underlying bill contains a misguided policy rider blocking the Administration from restoring long-standing Clean Water Act protections for stream and wetlands across the country--and an amendment was adopted during floor debate which will block enforcement of common sense light bulb energy efficiency standards. Mr. Chair, we can do better. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 436 is primarily focused on dismantling the Affordable Care Act, which is why I will oppose it today. Medical devices offer important benefits to individuals throughout the country. In some cases they save lives; in other cases, they improve the quality of life. An important part of the Affordable Care Act was to expand access to the benefits of medical devices by making health insurance more affordable. Indeed, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, over 30 million more Americans will have access to affordable care. This is good for the individuals, and it is also good for the manufacturers of these devices, who will now have more people who can afford their products. Now, the medical device industry apparently wants to keep the benefits of having more insured people capable of benefiting from their products without contributing to the effort that allows those individuals to afford their coverage in the first place. If every group that joined the effort to expand insurance coverage took that approach, the entire health care reform effort would fall apart--which is precisely the outcome the Republican majority is seeking with this legislation. Additionally, rather than finding a different way to pay for extending affordable health insurance to over 30 million Americans, this repeal--and the rest of the bill--is offset by eliminating existing protections for middle and lower-income citizens who receive tax credits for insurance they purchase on the exchange, a change the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates will increase the ranks of the uninsured by 350,000. While I would support the provision in this bill allowing health care flexible spending account holders to recover up to $500 in unspent funds from their FSAs if it came before the House as a freestanding bill, the vast majority of this legislation is clearly aimed at undermining the Affordable Care Act. Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for continuing their tradition for the third straight year of reporting a bipartisan Intelligence Authorization bill. H.R. 5743, the Intelligence Authorization Act, comes to the floor today after having passed the Intelligence Committee by a unanimous 19 0 vote. The bill allocates resources to critical national security programs including those that detect, prevent, and disrupt potential terrorist attacks against the American people. The bill enhances counter terrorism efforts against al Qaeda and its global affiliates; increases oversight of the spending at intelligence agencies and supports global initiatives to address emerging threats to our national security. The measure provides funding to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency and other agencies, for operations, personnel and equipment. Though much of the funding is classified, each dollar is intended to address the funding needs of this country's clandestine services. The valiant American men and woman who toil anonymously in the shadows of the intelligence world deserve our full support for their dedicated service. The funding authorized by this bill will help ensure they have the resources they need to do their job.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my qualified support for H.R. 5854, the FY13 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill. While I commend Chairmen Rogers and Culberson and Ranking Members Smith and Bishop for their efforts to craft bipartisan legislation dedicated to addressing the needs of current and former servicemembers and their families, I support this bill with strong reservations about how the measure treats the very civilian employees who will be asked to provide the services and carry out the instructions outlined in the bill. H.R. 5854 contains a number of important provisions designed to serve our military with an eye toward trimming spending, eliminating waste and directing taxpayer dollars more effectively. The MilCon-VA bill, as it is called, funds construction by the Department of Defense for hospitals, clinics, schools, family housing and other facilities in order to deliver timely and vital medical care to our Nation's veterans, active military members and their families. The measure also provides funding for disability care, educational benefits and other resources to help advance U.S. missions abroad. Specifically, I applaud the committee for funding support for medical services and facilities; for veteran's compensation, pension and burial benefits for former servicemembers, survivors and their dependents; and for the important family housing here and abroad that helps ease some of the financial burden faced by our men and women in uniform. Despite providing necessary support for these and other important projects and programs, this bill also continues a troubling new Republican pattern in the Congress of balancing our fiscal accounts on the backs of our Federal employees. It seems like every time the Republicans bring a bill to the floor, they use it as a vehicle to attack public servants by cutting their pensions, or pay, or benefits to pay for other spending items. Federal employees have already given up $60 billion of salary over 10 years as part of the two-year pay freeze. Starting in January 2013, new Federal employees will contribute more to their pensions to offset the $15 billion cost of Unemployment Insurance Extension legislation. And with this MilCon bill, Federal employees are asked to give up the very small .5% partial COLA allotted in the President's FY13 budget request. Nurses and rehabilitation specialists, weapons systems mechanics and border guards are among the many dedicated Federal employees that serve our country. They sometimes serve shoulder-to-shoulder on the battlefield with our uniformed servicemembers. They should not be a piggy-bank that Republicans turn to whenever they need a source of funds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the American Podiatric Medical Association on its 100th anniversary. Founded in 1912, the American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA), located in Bethesda, is the nation's leading and recognized professional organization for doctors of podiatric medicine (DPMs), and the preeminent trade association representing podiatric medicine and surgery. I am very proud that the APMA's national headquarters is in Maryland's Eighth Congressional district. DPMs, also known as podiatrists, are recognized as physicians and surgeons, qualified by their education, training and experience to diagnose and treat conditions affecting the foot, ankle, and structures of the leg. The medical education and training of a DPM includes four years of undergraduate education, four years of podiatric medical education at an accredited podiatric medical college, and at least three years of hospital residency training. In short, Mr. Speaker, podiatric medicine is to the foot and ankle what ophthalmology is to the eye, cardiology is to the heart, or otolaryngology is to the ear, nose, and throat. Podiatric medicine has witnessed a tremendous evolution over the past 100 years, and podiatrists are now the preeminent providers of foot and ankle care. On July 1, 1912, 225 charter members gathered at the LaSalle Hotel in Chicago to organize a national association dedicated to the needs of practicing chiropodists. Today, what began as the National Association of Chiropodists is the American Podiatric Medical Association, home to more than 12,000 member podiatrists. APMA has 53 component organizations across the United States and its territories, and all practicing APMA members are licensed by the state in which they practice podiatric medicine. It seems at times that many Americans may not think about podiatrists until they experience foot or ankle problems. But we should be thankful that we have the expertise of thousands of podiatric physicians throughout the country as focused and dedicated medical professionals, medical professionals who really do help keep America walking. Within the field of podiatric medicine and surgery, podiatrists can focus on specialty areas such as surgery, sports medicine, biomechanics, geriatrics, pediatrics, orthopedics, or primary care. Podiatric physicians routinely perform comprehensive medical history and physical examinations; prescribe drugs and order and perform physical therapy; perform basic and complex reconstructive surgery; repair fractures and treat sports-related injuries; prescribe and fit orthotics, insoles, and custom-made shoes; and perform and interpret X- rays and other imaging studies. Mr. Speaker, an individual's feet often reveal indicators of that individual's overall health. The feet are affected by chronic diseases leading to decreased mobility and disability for individuals already in poor health. Arthritis, diabetes, and neurologic and circulatory disorders can all have an effect on our feet. Therefore, we must ensure that all individuals receive the expert foot care they need regardless of their disability status or expected longevity, and at all stages in their lives. In a 2010 survey by APMA, 50 percent of Americans indicated that they experience foot pain and discomfort. The same survey found that those who had foot pain were much more likely to experience problems in other areas of the body. Specifically, 65 percent of Americans who were overweight experienced regular foot pain, 32 percent with foot pain also had circulatory problems, and 20 percent of Americans with foot pain suffered from heart problems. The connection between chronic diseases and foot pain is not coincidental. Foot pain, regardless of its cause, can limit the mobility of individuals and contribute to a more sedentary lifestyle and the onset of numerous chronic conditions. Medically necessary care provided by podiatrists can reduce the risk of and prevent complications from diabetes as well as other diseases, while at the same time offer savings to our heavily burdened health care system. A recent study conducted by Thomson Reuters indicates that foot and ankle care furnished by podiatric physicians improves patient health and has a positive return on investment. According to the study, patients with diabetes presenting with foot ulcers who see podiatrists are less likely to suffer hospitalization or amputation than patients who had not received care from a podiatrist. Moreover, the study found that each dollar invested in care furnished by podiatric physicians offers the payer up to $51 in savings. In its first century, APMA has served the nation through two world wars and other conflicts; helped standardize and enhance educational standards; promoted the profession to patients and the public; and built lasting relationships with other medical specialties. The association regularly hosts medical and scientific meetings dedicated to highlighting and disseminating research findings and clinical advances in the prevention, detection, treatment, and the cure of foot, ankle and related conditions. And it continues to meet its clinical and scientific mission through its publication of academic journals and clinical statements on the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and cure of foot and ankle disorders; through providing continuing medical education in foot and ankle care; and through consumer education on foot and ankle health. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the American Podiatric Medical Association on its 100th anniversary, and in recognizing its members' significant service and contributions to our country's health-care delivery system.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2012. This is a cynical bill under the guise of preventing sex selection which would undermine a woman's right to choose. Clearly, sex-selective abortions are offensive and unacceptable. But this bill will only interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Are doctors supposed to interrogate women to determine their motivation for seeking an abortion? What other means must doctors take to ensure that they are not imprisoned as a result of this bill? These threats will only impede open, honest communication between women and their providers and undermine the doctor-patient relationship. Some providers will be discouraged from offering any reproductive tests and services and as a result, women's access to access safe, legal health care will be jeopardized. Mr. Speaker, if House Republicans truly wanted to protect women, then they would have allowed a vote on legislation to ensure the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately they did not. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3541.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will not be able to support this National Defense Authorization Act. I hope that will change when it returns from the Senate. This is only the second time I have voted against the NDAA. The first was last year. That bill contained a number of serious flaws including an overly broad provision that allowed the Executive wide latitude to commit U.S. forces to military action without congressional approval. Similarly, this bill contains provisions that I cannot support in their current form. It is unfortunate that the Republican majority has chosen to depart from the longstanding tradition of trying to shape bipartisan defense authorization bills. The recently departed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said that ``Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.'' He also made clear, ``. . . 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.'' In accordance with that advice, the top civilian and military leaders developed a strategy to meet our national security needs more efficiently. Recognizing that the Defense Department still has not passed a Government Accountability Office audit, they identified important savings without compromising our national security. That plan was incorporated into the Budget Control Act enacted last August. In developing its plan, the Defense Department conducted a comprehensive review of force needs, capabilities and obligations. Difficult choices were made about which programs to keep and which to cut in order to maintain a fiscally responsible mission ready capability. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said of the Defense budget, ``This budget will maintain our military's decisive edge and help sustain America's global leadership. It will preserve our ability to protect our vital national interests and to execute our most important missions.'' Unfortunately, the Republican Budget and the NDAA violate the bipartisan agreement reached just 9 months ago by adding billions of dollars of unwanted and unnecessary expenditures to the Pentagon. At a time when we need to be putting our fiscal house in order, this excessive spending cannot be justified. These are some of my specific objections to the bill: I oppose the provisions that put limits on the end-strength reductions put in place by the Administration. According to DoD, the limitations set by the bill would limit the Defense Department's ability to reduce the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps as troops return home from Afghanistan. Since the Administration has set these reductions in light of declining commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and in order to implement a new defense strategy which emphasizes a smaller and leaner force, maintaining excessively high troop levels will unnecessarily drive up costs. The bill contains provisions that block the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft including C 27J, C 23, C 130 and other aircraft and the RQ 4 Global Hawk without including necessary funding for the manning, repair, maintenance and modernization of these aircraft. Additionally, I oppose the bill's insistence on maintaining a minimum of 12 ballistic missile submarines in the fleet because it limits the Navy's ability to manage the strategic force. The bill authorizes the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the DoD says threatens funding for the maintenance and construction of other more urgent elements of the country's missile defense. I also oppose the bill's provisions that limit the reduction of nuclear forces that the Administration says are necessary to implement the New Start Treaty requirements and to set the country's nuclear policy. And finally, I oppose sections 1035 1043 of the bill which would constrain the flexibility needed by the Nation's armed forces to deal with evolving counterterrorism threats. These provisions pertain to the treatment by the military of terror suspects captured on American soil and elsewhere.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of a dedicated federal employee-Sheldon Kotzin, the Associate Director for Library Operations at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). For the past 43 years, Mr. Kotzin has provided outstanding service to NLM, the largest medical library in the world, a hub of national and international scientific medical communication, and a respected leader in information innovation. When he retires on June 29, 2012, Mr. Kotzin will have left his imprint not only on NLM but on generations of its employees, librarians, users and stakeholders, information professionals in the United States and around the globe, journal publishers, and countless others whom he has advised, assisted, and mentored, and with whom he has collaborated. After earning his Master of Library Science degree from Indiana University in 1968, Mr. Kotzin came to NLM as a Library Associate. Over the years, he has served as Head of the Catalog Maintenance Unit in the Technical Services Division; Head of the Collection Access Section in the Public Services Division (then Loan and Stack); and Coordinator of the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (then the Regional Medical Library Network). Mr. Kotzin became Chief of the Bibliographic Services Division in 1981 and assumed his post as Associate Director for Library Operations in 2006. Since 1998, Mr. Kotzin has been Executive Editor of the widely-used MEDLINE database, which provides the bibliographic information of esteemed international biomedical journals from around the world, and Administrator of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, the body that reviews and recommends journals for indexing in MEDLINE. In addition, Mr. Kotzin served as NLM's representative to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, a group of clinical journal editors that establishes the standards for the submission of journal articles and comments on ethical principles related to publication in biomedical journals. Mr. Kotzin has chaired the Janet Doe Lecture Jury and the Joseph Leiter Lectureship Committee for the Medical Library Association, which elected him a Fellow in 2007. Mr. Kotzin's work has had an enormous influence on journal publishers, NLM users, and countless others. His leadership and tireless efforts have had a significant impact on the development of federal information policies that ensure broad public access to electronic government health information resources. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent Sheldon Kotzin in the U.S. Congress and ask my colleagues to join me in extending to him our gratitude and appreciation for his years of service to our country and his contributions to international scientific medical communication.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H. Res. 568 to commend Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for crafting this bi-partisan resolution and to urge my colleagues to support the bill. 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 would 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. The economic sanctions imposed on Iran have succeeded in bringing the Iranians to the negotiating table in Istanbul. 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. I know the Obama Administration will insist on a verifiable agreement when talks resume later this month. This resolution should send a strong signal to the Iranian regime that Congress stands with President Obama on this critical matter.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 2013. This bill violates the bipartisan agreement Congress struck with the President last August when we enacted the Budget Control Act of 2012. That legislation created a framework to reduce the deficit by two trillion dollars. It provided balanced spending caps that reduced the nation's deficit while protecting our national priorities and the fragile economic recovery. The House Republican Leadership decided to ignore this agreement months after it was enacted by demanding an additional $19 billion in cuts in this bill and other appropriations bills. This bill is $1.6 billion less than the fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science bill and about $731 million less than the Senate's version. These unnecessary cuts reduce our investments in key areas like law enforcement, access to justice for the poor, scientific research, efforts to protect of environment and funding for our space program. These cuts are unnecessary and force Members of Congress to makes decisions to cut one necessary program at the expense of another critical program. For example, the original bill funds the Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Grants Program (COPS) at $217 million less than the level requested by the Administration. An amendment was adopted to increase funding for the COPS grants to current level, but it took critical funding from NASA. If the Republican leaders would have abided by the Budget Control Act agreement, we would have been able to fund critical COPS grants and NASA. Maryland's economy depends on money to keep cops on the street and fund NASA facilities like the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. I also strongly oppose the inadequate funding levels for the Legal Services Corporation, which is the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans. The bill funds the Legal Services Corporation at level that is $74 million below the President's request. The Obama Administration stated that tens of thousands of low-income Americans, including many military families and veterans, would be denied assistance with civil legal problems if these cuts are adopted. This would prevent them from receiving fair treatment in the courts. Our justice system should be open to everyone, not just those who can afford representation. I also strongly object to the plethora of ideological policy riders added to the bill to hamstring the Obama Administration's efforts to reduce border violence, protect the environment and uphold civil rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. The bill prevents federal law enforcement's ability to investigate and curb gun trafficking along U.S. Mexican border. The bill prevents the Administration from continuing efforts to prevent overfishing and protecting our oceans and wildlife. The bill prevents the Department of Justice from challenging state voter suppression laws, state immigration laws that potentially violate the U.S. Constitution, and the ability for the federal government to offer federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this harmful legislation. I will monitor the progress of this bill in the Senate and conference. I am hopeful that future changes and improvements will give me a chance to vote on a more acceptable alternative.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, since 1994 Congress has expanded and reauthorized the landmark Violence Against Women Act numerous times in a bipartisan manner. It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership in the House has deviated from tradition with this bill. This bill not only strips important provisions that were passed in the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 68 31, but also weakens preventive provisions that have been included in previous bills reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which were supported by Democrats and Republicans over the past 18 years. The Senate's comprehensive reauthorization bill improves protections for Native American women, immigrants, and ensures all victims are assisted regardless of religion or sexual orientation. I support the Senate's bipartisan approach to the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization bill. I cosponsored a version of the bill in the House of Representatives. I also voted to bring the Senate bill up for a vote in the House, but the Republican leadership blocked all amendments and the opportunity to vote on the Senate version. House Republicans have brought to the floor today a controversial bill that will weaken long-standing protections and roll back key provisions. This is the first time the Violence Against Women Act has become political and it is shame. More than 300 groups have opposed aspects of this bill. Those groups include the National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Organization for Women, YWCA USA, AAUW, Business and Professional Women's Foundation, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, American Bar Association, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, National Congress of American Indians, National Council of La Raza, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. I believe that Congress should stand up for all victims of domestic violence and support a comprehensive reauthorization bill. I hope the House rejects this bill today and immediately passes the Senate's Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill. I will monitor the progress of this bill in conference with the Senate. I am hopeful that future changes and improvements will give me a chance to vote on an acceptable alternative.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4240, the Ambassador James R. Lilley and Congressman Stephen J. Solarz North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2012. I commend Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman and the members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing this important measure to the floor. Ambassador Lilley, as director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and Congressman Solarz, as chairman of the House subcommittee on East Asia and later as co-chairman of the Committee on Human Rights in North Korea, refused to stand by silently as the North Korean government oppressed, abused and murdered its own people. Their leadership and advocacy helped to raise awareness about the deplorable conditions endured by the North Korean people, including the government's practice of executing on-the-spot attempted defectors. This resolution encourages the United States government to continue working with foreign governments and with the Peoples Republic of China in particular, to help resettle refugees who escape North Korea. Additionally, the bill recognizes the efforts undertaken in North Korea by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and encourages the board to meet its goal of broadcasting 12 hours of daily radio transmissions into that country. The United States has the largest international refugee resettlement program in the world. Since this Act was originally passed, 128 North Koreans have been successfully resettled, including 23 in the last year. The success of this program is a fitting tribute to the memory and work of Ambassador Lilley and Congressman Solarz.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You won't ask one penny more for people making over $1 million a year to help reduce our deficit, not one penny. And the math is pretty simple after that; because you ask nothing of them, your budget whacks everyone else. That's why your budget ends the Medicare guarantee; that's why you cut $800 billion out of Medicaid; and that's why, in your sequester proposal here, you whack programs that help the most vulnerable, struggling families. Let's talk about what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said your proposal would do: 22 million households with children would see their food and nutrition support cut under the SNAP reductions; 300,000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program; 300,000 kids will lose their health coverage under the children's health insurance program. Those are the decisions you have to make because you don't want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy. We say the American people would make a different choice. We have that different choice in the substitute amendment. That substitute amendment would prevent those cuts to the Defense Department. It would prevent cuts to NIH and biomedical research. But it would prevent those cuts without whacking seniors and children's health programs. It would do it in a balanced way. We say we don't need the direct payments to agricultural businesses. These are payments that go to ag businesses whether they're making money or not. The spigot is on. We cut those; you don't in your proposal that's before us today. Why not? Instead, you cut the food and nutrition programs. So we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every bipartisan group that has gotten together has recommended. Because 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying they're not going to ask the folks at the very top to put in one penny, one dime more, you're smacking everybody else. We don't think that's the right way to go. We agree we should reduce the deficit. And we eliminate the sequester, but just in a different way.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Susan Black Elwell, a constituent and a woman of strength, courage, and vision. I am sad to say that Susan just lost her life to cancer, but, until her very last weeks, she used her life to make a difference in the lives of others. From her work as a founder and director of an innovative neighborhood nursery school and her visionary leadership of the largest and oldest women's political club in Maryland, to her service as a Peace Corps volunteer, Susan sought to enlighten and engage others through education and activism. Born in North Bay, Ontario and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Susan graduated from Chatham College for Women in 1962. She came to Washington as a young college graduate, working for the Washington Urban League and then the Peace Corps, where she met her husband Richard. They served in the Peace Corps together in Niger. After returning to the Washington, D.C. area and starting a family, Susan became a founder and the first director of the Chevy Chase Baptist Church Children's Center for children aged 6 months to 5 years. An innovative school, CCBC Children's Center became a much sought-after nursery school. Susan was an active member of the Chevy Chase Historical Society Board. In 2007, she launched a new Historical Society program called ``History Go-Round,'' a series of programs for residents who love to learn about our community's history. The series offered neighbors with similar interests guided visits to historical sites, roundtables led by distinguished speakers, and exploration of historical sites both in the neighborhood and throughout the larger community. Susan brought the same creativity and enthusiasm to her leadership of the Woman's Suburban Democratic Club, Maryland's oldest and largest political group, which celebrates its 55th anniversary this year. As a board member and president, she led the group to unprecedented growth and activity, encouraging a broader membership and mentoring younger members. In addition to these achievements, Susan was a Master Gardener, the founder of the Chatham College for Women's Washington Area Alumnae Club, a Democratic precinct chair, and a lifelong activist. In 2005, she was awarded the William Trimble Beatty Award, which is presented to a Chatham College volunteer who embodies the spirit and hard work of that college's founder, Reverend William Trimble Beatty. Even as she has fought her own battle with cancer, she spoke out against the shortage of some cancer drugs and the terrible impact these shortages have on those who so desperately need them. Mr. Speaker, I was honored to know Susan and to represent her in Congress. As an elected official, I benefitted from her idealism, wisdom, and hard work. More importantly, her strong sense of community and her dedication to building a better, more educated and thoughtful community made the world a better place, and she will be deeply missed. I send my deepest condolences to her husband Richard and son Martin, stepsons David, Joe, and Peter, and daughter-in-law, Josie, and ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this remarkable woman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. As we said at the beginning, there is no disagreement over the fact that we need to have a plan to reduce our deficit. The question has been how. And there is no dispute about whether we need to replace the sequester, the meat-ax cuts that will take place automatically January 1. Again, the question is how. The Republican approach once again asks nothing of people who are doing so well in this country, people who are making over $1 million a year. And because they ask nothing of them, their budget hits everybody else. The figures we're talking about today, these are about real people. These are figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as to the impact of their proposal: 300,000 kids will lose their health care coverage under CHIPs; 22 million kids will see their food and nutrition support under SNAP reduced; 2 million people will see all of their food and nutrition support eliminated. Those are facts. I know people want to pretend that this doesn't impact real people. That makes it easier to say we're not going to ask big oil companies to get rid of their subsidies if we can pretend that the cuts don't have an impact, but they do. And that's why every bipartisan group that's looked at this budget challenge has said we need a combination of cuts. We did a trillion more, and we have cuts in our substitute, but you also need to get some revenue by closing some of these tax loopholes. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats had a substitute amendment. The Republicans won't even let us have a vote on it. They waived three provisions in their rules to bring up their proposal. They wouldn't waive one to hear an alternative. We keep hearing that it's so important to reduce the deficit; apparently, not important enough to ask for one penny from people who are making a million dollars a year. We keep hearing that the impact of sequester is going to hit defense. But again, not one penny from the oil companies to help take a balanced approach. I urge rejection of the Republican proposal. I wish we could have an up-or-down vote on the Democratic substitute. That would be democracy, but maybe that's asking too much these days. Mr. Speaker, I now yield the balance of my time to a lady who has spent her life fighting for justice and trying to make sure that is reflected in the budgets that we present to the American people, the distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Democratic Whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who is on the Ways and Means Committee and knows a lot about this issue.