Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access to food and nutrition, and that children in our country continue to have access to health care. And that's what this debate is all about, because we do have an alternative. There is no disagreement on two things: Number one, we need to reduce our deficit in this country in a credible way; number two, the meat-ax approach of the sequester is not a smart way to do it. So how should we go about reducing our deficit? Well, we propose to do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission that has looked at this issue has recommended--through a combination of difficult cuts. And I would remind everybody that just last August we cut a trillion dollars through a combination of cuts as well as cuts to tax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in this country, people who are making $1 million a year, to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't want to take up all your time, but I would like to make the point that what our substitute does is, dollar for dollar, replace the sequester, which is what our Republican colleagues have said is the object of this effort, which is to make sure that we don't have the meat-ax approach. I would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons that we're not going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is because it doesn't comply exactly with the rules. In bringing the Republican bill to the floor today, I'm reading right here on the report, the committee report, you waived three rules. You waived three rules, and yet you can't allow an up-or-down vote on a substitute amendment. You know that you have it within the power to allow our substitute, just as you waived these three rules.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. The Democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the sequester in a different way. It would prevent the across-the-board cuts from happening to defense and the non-defense programs. So there's an agreement that that meat-ax approach is the wrong way. We have an alternative. The gentleman just talked about how we have this great debate of ideas on the floor of the House. I have a very simple question: Why are we not going to get an up-or-down vote on our idea on how we would replace the sequester in a balanced way?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of today's legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and appreciate the work done by Leaders Hoyer and Cantor to bring this bill to the floor today. As amended, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for three years and incrementally increase the assistance it provides foreign buyers of American products to $140 billion by fiscal year 2014, which is roughly in line with projected demand. This bipartisan agreement is good for manufacturers, good for jobs and good for taxpayers. It enjoys broad backing from industry and labor, and it deserves our support.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4133, as a cosponsor of the bill and to encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Since the Truman Administration, we as a Nation have worked with the people of Israel to establish and support a close economic, cultural and strategic partnership based on a common respect for democracy and a commitment to the goal of creating a lasting peace in the Middle East. Today, that partnership is among the strongest shared by any two countries. Israel exists in a geographical region of paramount economic and strategic importance to the United States and the American people recognize that ensuring a safe and secure Israel is in the long-term national security interests of our country. In support of the Israeli Government's efforts to protect its people, the U.S. has helped Israel develop a missile defense system; we have committed ourselves to the task of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; and the U.S. has led the way against attempts to use international forums to delegitimize the State of Israel. It is in a similar vein that we consider H.R. 4133 today. Among other things, this measure would allocate additional weaponry and munitions for Israel in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq; expand Israel's authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis; encourage an expanded role for Israel within NATO; and require the President to submit a report on the status of Israel's qualitative military edge in light of current trends and instability in the region. By expressing our support for the economic and strategic security of Israel at this critical time in its history, we send an unambiguous message about our unshakable commitment to the security of Israel.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to recognize and celebrate the life of Reginald E. Gilliam, Jr. After a brave battle against lymphoma, Reg--as he was known--passed away on March 28, 2012 at the age of sixty-seven. Reg had an extraordinary career, honorably serving his country, mentoring students, and paving an inclusive path in politics and in life for all Americans. Reg served our country proudly and with distinction. As Legislative Counsel to Senator John Glenn, Reg developed legislation on education, economic development and urban safety and fire prevention, all of which were enacted into law. Reg also served in the sub-cabinet of New York Governor Mario Cuomo as his chief official in charge of surface transportation, and then as Chief of Staff to Congressman Louis Stokes. The breadth of his knowledge and the depth of his dedication to the people he served were always apparent, and his efforts led to his enriching the lives of countless people. As Vice Chairman and Commissioner of the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) under President Jimmy Carter, Reg promoted the inclusion of minorities throughout the transportation industry. No one was more proud of his appointment to this important position than his father, one of the original members of A. Philip Randolph's Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and an employee of the railroad industry, which was closely regulated by the ICC. Reg was sworn into office by his father in an emotional and moving ceremony. Reg's influence was not limited to the public sector. As Senior Managing Director at Hill & Knowlton Worldwide Public Affairs, he represented large and small companies alike on legislative and regulatory policy. For the past ten years, he was Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at Sodexo, Inc., playing a vital role in shaping the company into the significant enterprise that it is today. Perhaps most notable was Reg's commitment to education. He was one of the founders of the Harvard Black Student Association, became its first Chairman and would eventually serve on the Board of Trustees for several colleges and universities. He also taught at the State University of New York and at Williams College. In addition to pursuing his own education, Reg always made sure to give back. During his time at Harvard, Reg served as a Voting Rights Act poll watcher in the South, volunteered on neighborhood safety patrols in Harlem, and wrote his final legal thesis on the Newark riots. Reg was dedicated to utilizing his own success to help others and spent countless hours mentoring and counseling young people. His service was recognized on numerous occasions, including his receipt of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Harvard Black Law Association and the President's Award for Leadership & Excellence from the Washington Government Relations Group. Reg was a significant presence in our community. It takes an extraordinary person to approach every situation with the grace and compassion that Reg did. His good work made a difference in the lives of many, and he will always be remembered for his kindness, dedication and tireless efforts to help others. On a personal note, I had the privilege of working with Reg on a number of issues important to workers and businesses in our community. He always conducted himself with the highest degree of integrity and professionalism. He was careful to present all sides of an issue and explain what he was seeking to accomplish. In addition, Reg regularly took the time to ask how others were doing even as he was struggling with his own personal health challenges. I will miss his warm personality, good humor and sense of humanity. I send my deepest condolences to his wife Arleen and to his many friends, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering this remarkable man.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. Just a few weeks ago on this very floor, our Republican colleagues voted for the Republican budget that called for a doubling of interest rates on student loans on 7 million American students, and they voted against the Democratic alternative budget, which would have prevented that increase in student loan interest rates. So what's happened over the last couple weeks? Well, President Obama has gone to the country. He has gone to students and he's told the story about what the Republican budget would do, and so we are here today. But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues haven't changed their minds about this; they've changed their tactics. If they really wanted to prevent student loans from increasing, they wouldn't seek to cover the costs by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening, by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, by cutting other women's health care measures. They wouldn't push a measure the President has already said he would veto. Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal. Let's cover the cost by getting rid of the subsidies for Big Oil companies. That's the real slush fund around here. The big taxpayer subsidies go for that purpose. Let's get the job done, and let's not play political games. Unfortunately, what we're seeing here, Mr. Speaker, is an effort to seek political cover. Let's get the job done for real.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, while there is a legitimate role for swaps and other derivatives when it comes to managing risk, one of the inescapable lessons from the last economic crisis is the havoc those instruments can cause when they are insufficiently regulated. In an effort to make sure the abuses that led to the Great Recession never happen again, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act properly placed these kinds of transactions under far more meaningful prudential regulation. Just last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission finalized the ``swap dealer'' rule at issue in today's legislation. Unfortunately, that final rule--already the product of compromise at the CFTC--is further weakened by the misleadingly named ``Small Business Credit Availability Act'' to the point where its ability to protect the public from the systemic risk it was originally intended to prevent is undermined. For example, we should not let big oil companies speculate in the oil futures markets without limit or oversight under the guise of hedging their commercial operations. Furthermore, we should not exempt vast swaths of our credit and debt markets from prudential regulation under the CFTC rule. Yet that's precisely what this bill proposes to do. Madam Speaker, we know where this road leads, and we simply can't afford to go back there. I support smart regulation that permits the legitimate uses of these instruments for the benefits they can provide while eliminating the speculative abuses that can cause the rest of us so much harm. And that is why I oppose today's legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012, I rise to commend Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings and the members of the House Government Oversight Committee for their bipartisan efforts in crafting this thoughtful and timely piece of legislation. This bill is necessary because there has been an increasing number of cyber-attacks against federal information systems, including incidents in which operations were disrupted or sensitive data placed at risk. Among the number of notable security breaches in 2011 were cyber- attacks at the Pentagon, the Oak Ridge Laboratory and the Veterans Administration. According to the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, the number of cyber-incidents reported in 2010 totaled more than 107,000. The number of federal-only incidents was up 39 percent compared with 2009, at nearly 42,000 incidents. This act is intended to help arrest and reverse this troubling trend by ensuring that federal agencies use risk-based approaches to defend against cyber-attacks and to protect government information from unauthorized access. By shifting the federal government to a system of continuous monitoring of information systems and streamlining reporting requirements, the bill addresses concerns that FISMA, in its current form, places too great an emphasis on compliance over outcomes. The bill requires OMB to oversee agency policies and develop information security protections consistent with standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and OMB would have to report to Congress annually on agency compliance. Additionally, each agency would be required to provide protections that are commensurate with the risks posed to the security of the agency's information. The head of each agency would be required to appoint a Chief Information Security Officer responsible for developing and implementing an information security program and the bill mandates that each agency develop and implement an information security program that is approved by OMB. Mr. Speaker, as a leading employer in the U.S., the federal government has a special responsibility to ensure that the electronic points of entry it maintains with Americans and with the world are protected from unauthorized access and disruption. The common sense and necessary legislation before us today is an important step in that direction. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. It was 97 years ago today that over 1.5 million men, women, and children, almost 75 percent of the pre-war Armenian population, were brutally exterminated by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman authorities arrested and later murdered over 250 Armenian political, intellectual, and religious leaders in Istanbul, beginning a horrific and systematic campaign to wipe a 3,000 year-old community from the face of the earth. Armenian members of the Turkish armed forces were separated from their units and placed into labor battalions, where they were either worked to death or murdered. In Armenian villages throughout Turkey, adult males were singled out for execution, while the remaining women, children, and elderly inhabitants were then forced to march without food or water to the Syrian Desert. En route they were set upon by the Ottoman Security Service's ``Special Organization,'' which consisted of released convicts and was created specifically for the purpose of carrying out ethnic cleansing. In the end, of the 2.1 million Armenians residing in Turkey at the start of World War I, only 100,000 would survive to see the end of hostilities. And yet, despite clear evidence that genocide occurred, many officials today refuse to even to use the word genocide when referring to this incident. By equivocating, they not only dishonor the victims of this atrocity and their descendents, they increase the chance that other crimes against humanity are met with similar equivocation. Indeed, before sending the ``Death's Head'' SS units into Poland with orders to ``kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children,'' Adolph Hitler is reported to have commented to his generals, ``who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?'' When we fail to fully acknowledge that genocide was perpetrated against the Armenian people in 1915, it becomes a little easier to do the same today when we see similar atrocities unfold in Bosnia, or Rwanda or Iraq or Sudan. Last week the world commemorated International Holocaust Remembrance Day as people everywhere gathered to renew our collective pledge to ``Never Forget.'' Today we gather for a similar purpose as we remember the first genocide of the 20th century. We recall the suffering of the Armenian people 97 years ago and endeavor to ease the pain of their descendants not only out of sympathy for what they have experienced, but to remind ourselves that we must never allow it to happen again.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Levin. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This bill provides a windfall tax break to hedge fund owners, to big Washington law firms, to the very wealthy, even if they don't hire a single person--not one. In fact, in a cruel hoax and twist on this, wealthy individuals can qualify for this tax break even if they fire people this year. And in some cases they can also get a bigger tax break if they do not make their investments this year. Mr. Speaker, this place sometimes gets to be a fact-free zone. We have the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee say, The economic activity generated by this is so small as to be incalculable. That's why Bruce Bartlett, former economic adviser to President Reagan said, It will do nothing whatsoever to increase employment. So what's this all about? It gives a big tax break to the wealthiest individuals while adding $50 billion to our deficit and debt. Now, Mr. Speaker, this week highlights the unfortunate doublespeak from our Republican colleagues when it comes to the deficit. On the Senate side, a majority of Republicans voted against a bill to apply the Buffett rule, meaning that we were going to ask millionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as many of their employees paid and use that $50 billion toward deficit reduction. Here in the House, we're providing a $50 billion tax break that adds to the deficit, and this one is targeted disproportionately to very wealthy individuals. There's another sort of strange irony. When we were debating the payroll tax cut for a year that would benefit 160 million Americans, our Republican colleagues dragged their feet and then said this was all a gimmick, it was a 1-year thing, it was a sugar high. Well, at least the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that it would generate economic activity. In fact, they ranked it near the top. This is a 1-year thing that's going to give a great sugar high to the wealthiest individuals. They are going to be floating on this. But it's ranked near the bottom by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in terms of economic activity. You want to know another irony? When it came to providing a tax break for 160 million Americans, payroll tax cut, we paid for it. We offset the cost of that. When it comes to providing a sugar high, $50 billion tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, we don't offset it. We put it on our national credit card. We increase the debt. Who pays for that? We've heard on a bipartisan basis that's our kids, our grandkids. We're all going to be paying for that debt. So Mr. Speaker, this is worse than a gimmick. It's not good for the economy, it adds to the deficit, and I urge that we reject this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with people in the U.S., in Israel and around the world in recognition of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. On this day we honor the memory of the six million Jews and the many millions of others who perished during the Holocaust and we celebrate the strength and perseverance of the survivors. By stopping each year to recognize the significance of this day, we also rededicate ourselves to the principles of individual freedom and to a just society and we renew our pledge to Never Forget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, this so-called ``Sportsmen's Heritage Act'' is an amalgam of four separate bills that have more to do with undermining conservation laws than hunting, fishing or recreational shooting. Like many Americans and most Members of this House, I don't have a problem with hunting, fishing or recreational shooting on federal land where appropriate. As a practical matter, over 75% of all federal lands are already open to hunting and fishing--and more than 85% of all national monuments are open for recreational shooting. But as a matter of common sense, these recreational activities need to be balanced against the health and safety of other park users and uses, as well as the proper management of wildlife and wildfire risk. And at the end of the day, these kinds of decisions are best made by local land managers, not an agency head in Washington, D.C. This legislation is further encumbered by a regulatory earmark benefitting an estimated 41 trophy hunters at the expense of our endangered species laws, and a provision banning the EPA from doing something it has already publicly said it isn't going to do. Accordingly, I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Isn't it the case that, in passing this rule, we provide the process by which the budget will be implemented in the House of Representatives? Isn't that the case?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern. He is absolutely right. The next vote will be a vote to double down on the Republican budget. I appreciate the answer from my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). What the next vote will allow, the vote on the rule, is for the House to proceed with the implementation of the Republican budget. Therefore, if you think that budget is the wrong direction for this country, you should vote against the rule and not give the House the authority to move forward, because that's what the next vote is all about. Mr. Speaker, let's just remember what that budget does. I would just remind my colleagues that the issue in the debate was not whether or not we reduce the long-term deficit in this country. We've got to do that. The issue was how we do that. The Republican budget did not follow the advice of every bipartisan group that has looked at the challenge of deficit reduction, because those bipartisan groups have said that we need to take a balanced approach--meaning, we've got to make some tough cuts. We passed some of the Budget Control Act, and we needed to do more. They also said that we needed to deal with the revenue side of the equation, but the Republican budget doesn't ask for one penny--one penny--from millionaires for the purposes of deficit reduction. It doesn't close one single tax loophole for the purposes of deficit reduction--not one. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our Republican colleagues have signed a pledge saying they won't do that, that they won't close one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. Now, the American people understand the math of the budget. If you say that we're not going to ask the wealthiest to do a little more as part of reducing the deficit, it means you've got to sock it to everybody else even harder. Just this week, we saw this play out. Yesterday, in the Senate, they had a vote on the Buffett rule. It is a very simple proposition: let's ask millionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries. Every Democratic Senator but one voted for it. Every Republican Senator but one voted against it. Contrast that to what's going to happen in the House on Thursday. Here in the House on Thursday, they're going to do another tax break. Look at the Joint Tax Committee, a nonpartisan group. Where did the bulk of those funds go--to hedge funds? to Washington law firms? There was $50 billion added to the deficit in 1 year, and it would be $500 billion over 10 years. When you give tax cuts like that and if you also want to reduce the deficit, it means you cut into everything else. So what do you cut? You do cut the Medicare guarantee. You hit seniors on Medicare. I'll just show you a chart that shows exactly what they do here. If you look at this chart, it shows the current support that seniors receive under the Medicare program. That's the blue line. This is the percentage of support they get from the Medicare program. As you can see, if you continue the Medicare program at the current levels of support, it maintains that at that level. This green line is the level of support that Members of Congress get as part of the Federal employees' health benefit plan. Members of Congress get a fixed percentage of the premium costs as part of their plan. When the costs go up, Members of Congress' support for the plan goes up accordingly, and that's why the level of support from Members of Congress--that's the green line--stays constant over time. As for the Medicare voucher plan, huh-uh. Under the Medicare voucher plan, as costs for health care rise, the amount of the vouchers seniors get will not keep pace. That's how they reduce the deficit. In other words, it's another round of tax cuts for millionaires; but for seniors who have a median income today of under $22,000, they're going to give them a voucher that doesn't keep pace with health care costs. For Members of Congress, your plan keeps pace with rising health care costs; not so for seniors on Medicare. Why? Again, it's not a balanced approach. What else does it do? We just had a hearing today in the Budget Committee on what it does to Medicaid. It shreds the social safety net. It cuts Medicaid by $800 billion over the next 10 years. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, by the year 2022, Medicaid will be cut by 30 percent and, by the year 2050, by 75 percent.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would remind my colleagues that two-thirds of Medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing homes and to care for disabled individuals, and another 20 percent goes to kids from low- income families. They would whack that in their budgets, in the Republican budget, by $800 billion. At the same time, if you'd just take the portion of the tax cut in the Republican budget that extends the Bush tax cuts for the folks at the very top, that's $961 billion, but they don't want to ask those Americans to go back to paying the same rates that they were paying during the Clinton administration--the same rates. The economy was booming and 20 million jobs were created--but no, they want to give the folks at the very high end a tax break and cut Medicaid by $810 billion. Those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget, and that's what this vote on this rule is all about: whether we should allow this body to go forward and implement that budget. It's wrong for the country. It's displaced priorities.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, the Senate amendment to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, JOBS, Act represents an improvement over the original House-passed version of this legislation, and I will support it today. Specifically, today's legislation strengthens the crowdfunding provisions of the JOBS Act by adding important investor protections. Under the revised bill, crowdfunding issuances will have to be offered through either an SEC-registered broker or an SEC-registered funding portal, which will further protect investors by improving accountability and enhancing regulatory oversight. Additionally, the maximum amount permitted to be raised in any one crowdfunding issuance has been reduced from $2 million to $1 million, and the maximum amount a non-accredited investor can invest has been limited to $2000 or 5 percent of income for those earning less than $100,000, and the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of income for those earning more than $100,000. Madam Speaker, innovation and entrepreneurship in markets governed by clear and fair rules of the road has always been the key to our economic success. While I believe that there are stronger job creation measures we can and should be considering today, and that this legislation will itself merit continued oversight to ensure it is in fact striking an appropriate regulatory balance, I will support it today for the benefit it may provide.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 3001 to reiterate my support for awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to Raoul Wallenberg for his heroic and brave actions during the holocaust that resulted in the saving of 100,000 Hungarian Jewish lives. During World War II, Raoul Wallenberg at the age of 31 was sent to Budapest to serve as a Swedish diplomat. The Holocaust was underway throughout Europe and he was instructed by his government to use the tools of his office, including passports and other creative means, to save as many lives as possible. Wallenberg devised a new Swedish passport, the Schutzpass, especially for the purpose of protecting Hungarian Jews. He designed it to look more imposing and official than the actual Swedish passport. The Schutzpass granted the bearer immunity from being sent to the death camps and is credited with saving 20,000 Jewish lives. Through this and other actions, Wallenberg helped save 100,000 of the 120,000 Hungarian Jews that survived the holocaust in Hungary and hundreds of thousands of American Jews can directly or indirectly attribute their own lives to his efforts. In recognition of these efforts, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan made Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of the United States, an honor only previously extended to Winston Churchill. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation in the memory of Raoul Wallenberg and in recognition of his bravery and for the many lives he helped save during World War II.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Adventure Theatre in Glen Echo, Maryland on 60 years of excellence. Founded in 1951, Adventure Theatre is the longest-running children's theatre in the Washington, DC metropolitan region and is a treasure of our community. I am honored to have it located in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District. Adventure Theatre reaches more than 65,000 individuals annually, with its award-winning performances based on classic and popular children's stories and with theater classes, workshops and community engagement programs. Through these intimate and interactive theater activities, children are introduced to a limitless world of possibilities. Adventure Theatre was founded by a group of women who believed that children deserve to experience outstanding theater. Over the next six decades, Adventure Theatre has become a nationally-recognized, state- of-the-art theater. At its gala anniversary celebration that is being held tonight, the Past Presidents of the Board of Directors are being presented with the 2012 Spirit of Adventure Award. This award commends these leaders for their creative spirits and successful guidance of this extraordinary theater. I am delighted to express my appreciation to them for all that they have done to enhance and enrich our community. I congratulate Adventure Theatre on its 60th anniversary and encourage my colleagues to bring family and friends to enjoy an Adventure Theatre production. You will have an experience that you will long remember.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, over the last two days, we have debated very different visions and choices for addressing the budgetary challenges facing our Nation. We do not have a difference on the question of whether or not we should reduce our long-term deficits and the debt. We must. We have a difference over how to do it. Unfortunately, the Republican plan makes all the wrong choices. It abandons the economic recovery and ends the Medicare guarantee to seniors, while providing a whopping average tax break of almost $400,000 for people making over $1 million a year. This Republican plan will weaken economic growth. It rewards corporations that ship American jobs overseas, while slashing investments in education, in science and research, and infrastructure that help America grow our economy right here at home. In short, it is a path to greater prosperity, if you're already wealthy. But it leaves seniors, working Americans, and future generations behind. During the course of this debate, we will have the opportunity to consider several alternatives to the Republican budget, offered by Democrats. Every single one of these alternatives is far superior to the Republican plan, because they embody a more sensible, fair approach to our fiscal challenges. To be clear, the only Democratic alternative that I fully and wholly support is the one I will offer. I have concerns with certain aspects of the other Democratic plans. I believe some of them rely too heavily on raising revenues and spend more than I think is necessary, and some of them make cuts to defense that I believe are too deep. Nevertheless, they provide important alternative approaches to reducing the deficit. Another proposal was offered by Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette. I commend these Members for offering an alternative budget. However, claims that their proposal embodied the recommendations of the Simpson- Bowles Commission are simply untrue. Most importantly, their proposal calls for significantly less revenue than Simpson-Bowles. It does this by changing the baseline used as the starting point for the revenue increase. The Simpson-Bowles baseline assumed the revenue generated by allowing the top tax rate to rise to 39 percent--as it is scheduled to do under current law. The Cooper-LaTourette proposal failed to account for that revenue. The difference is substantial--approximately $1 trillion in revenue. I believe in truth-in-advertising, and Cooper- LaTourette is very different from Simpson-Bowles. It moves the goal posts. As a result, the Cooper-LaTourette proposal has a significantly higher ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases compared to the deficit reduction in the Simpson-Bowles package. The Cooper-LaTourette plan also differs from Simpson-Bowles in other respects, such as by making deeper cuts in spending for discretionary programs. And it cuts nondefense discretionary funding by $350 billion more than required by the Budget Control Act over ten years--which is also inconsistent with Simpson-Bowles. I continue to believe the original Simpson-Bowles proposal offers an important framework for achieving a bipartisan deficit reduction plan. I would also point out that both the President's budget and the Democratic alternative I have offered share many of the same principles as Simpson-Bowles. Indeed, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles said the following about the President's budget: In the framework he announced in April and what he submitted to the Select Committee in September, the President embraced many of the goals and principles outlined by the Fiscal Commission and incorporated some of the policies we proposed. We are pleased that the President's latest budget continues to focus on deficit reduction and are also encouraged to see real, specific policies for limiting tax expenditures, slowing health care cost growth, and reducing spending throughout the government. While they went on to urge the President to go further, they recognized that his budget was a step in the right direction. The Democratic alternative budget mirrors the overall framework of the President's budget, and actually reduces the deficit more than the President's plan.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, the bill on the Floor today is not the bill we should be debating. Rather than extending surface transportation law for the ninth time, we should vote on the Senate- passed, bipartisan MAP 21 bill, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 14. This debate is yet another example of the Republican Majority's absolute refusal to compromise--even with Senators in their own party. They have spent six weeks arguing internally about this legislation. They have refused to work across the aisle. And this week they have waited until Thursday, two days before the surface transportation law expires, to hold a vote on this issue. This is not a time for games. We should be voting today on legislation to invest in critical infrastructure projects and support 1.8 million jobs nationwide. We should send legislation to the President to ensure a strong construction season for an industry facing 17.1 percent unemployment. Instead, the Republican Leadership insists on further delay.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Yesterday we debated the Republican budget plan. Today, we have a plan that's more of the same, except on steroids. As we debated yesterday, the question is not whether we should reduce the deficit or whether we should reduce the debt. Of course we should. The question is how we do it. And we should do it in a way that doesn't damage the ongoing economic recovery, which this proposal does. We should do it in a way that is balanced, meaning we have shared responsibility. The Democratic alternative that we'll debate shortly has that balance. We make difficult spending cuts but we also cut a lot of the loopholes and special breaks in the Tax Code because if you don't do any of that to reduce the deficit, it means you've got to reduce the deficit at the expense of everyone and everything else. And that, unfortunately, is what this budget does as well. It ends the Medicare guarantee for seniors. It slashes Medicaid very deeply, cutting the program by more than a third by the year 2022, where two-thirds of the funding for that program goes to seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals. It cuts deeply into education funding, both for prekindergarten/preschool as well as college. It cuts deeply into those important investments, including transportation, which we were debating earlier today. In fact, their transportation proposal would cut transportation spending next year by 46 percent, even though we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry. So this budget, like the one yesterday, makes the wrong choices for America. We can reduce our deficits and debt. Let's just do it in a balanced way with shared responsibility. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.