Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been fighting for jobs as part of this budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman is absolutely right about the need to look out for future generations and the issue of the deficit. What I always find staggering is the refusal to close one single loophole-- just one penny--for the purposes of reducing the deficit so that we can address that issue of the deficits in future generations. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who has been a great member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. Mr. RYAN from Ohio. Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times: Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982; Highway Revenue Act of 1982; Social Security amendments of 1983; Railroad Retirement Revenue Act, tax increase of 1983; Deficit Reduction Act of 1984; Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; continuing resolution in '87, and a continuing resolution in '88. The responsible thing to do is to ask Warren Buffett and his friends to help us make sure that these cuts aren't that deep in Medicare and Medicaid and Pell Grants and the other investments that we need to make in this country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points. The bipartisan bill that came over from the Senate would provide funding fully paid for, offset for 18 months. So you could avoid the big 46 percent cut next year that's in the Republican budget and make sure folks out there who are looking for jobs in the construction industry could get to work. Secondly, with respect to Medicare, you have two fundamentally different approaches. The approach we had in the Affordable Care Act was to say we need to modernize the Medicare system by changing incentives. So we reward and incentivize the quality of care, the value of care, not the volume of care which drove up costs. What we do not do is offload the risk of those rising health care costs onto seniors. Now the board, the IPAB the gentleman referred to, is specifically prohibited, and I have the language right here, from including any recommendations to ration health care, raise revenue or Medicare beneficiary premiums, whereas the Republican plan expressly works by offloading those risks and those costs onto seniors. A very different approach. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, that was an interesting colloquy, especially given the fact that the Senate has passed a bipartisan transportation bill; again, a bill that has very broad support that, if we took it up today in the House, we could get it passed right now, and it would be good for the economy and good for the fact that we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry. As I remarked earlier, the Republican budget that we're considering would actually cut transportation funding spending outlays by 46 percent next year. That is not good for the economy, and I hope this body will overturn that. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start by thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee for the way he's conducted the proceedings in the committee, and I look forward to a debate on the floor because as the chairman said, we have very deep differences. We do not have a difference on the question of whether or not we should reduce the deficits and the debt. Of course we do. We have a difference over how to do that. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican plan and in support of the Democratic alternative. The Republican budget on the floor of the House today is simply the sequel to last year's plan--more of the same. It abandons the economic recovery and ends the Medicare guarantee for individuals whose median income is under $21,000 while providing a whopping average tax break of almost $400,000 for people making over $1 million a year. These tax breaks for the very wealthy and the tax breaks for special interests come at the expense of middle-income taxpayers, at the expense of seniors, and at the expense of essential investments to keep America strong. This Republican plan will weaken economic growth and, according to independent analysts, result in over 2 million jobs lost over the next 2 years. It rewards corporations that ship American jobs overseas while slashing investments in education, in scientific research and infrastructure that help America grow our economy right here at home. In short, it is a path to greater prosperity if you are already wealthy, while leaving seniors, working Americans, and future generations behind. Mr. Chairman, we gather here at a very important time for our country. As a result of the extraordinary actions taken over the last 4 years and the tenacity of the American people and small businesses, America avoided a second Great Depression, and the economy is slowly recovering. Still, millions of Americans remain out of work through no fault of their own. We must push forward with the recovery, not fall back; and we certainly should not return to the failed economic policies that got America into this economic mess to begin with. And yet that is exactly what this Republican budget does. It is a recipe for national stagnation and decline. It retreats from our national goal of out-educating, out-building and out-competing the rest of the world. And it will weaken the economic recovery by slashing investments to important economic growth and expanding those tax breaks that reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas. Even when we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction industry, it cuts critical investments in our transportation systems, including a 46 percent cut in transportation starting next year. As I mentioned earlier, nonpartisan analysts looked at this and concluded it would lose 2 million jobs over 2 years. So, rather than putting the economy into reverse, we need to move forward. We need to adopt the remainder of the President's jobs plan, a plan that's been sitting here in the House since September. It's also clear that putting America back to work is the fastest and most effective way to reduce deficits in the short term. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that our weak economy and underemployment is the single major contributing factor to the deficit this year, accounting for over one-third of the projected 2012 deficit. So we need to come up with a credible plan. The issue, as I said, is not whether but how. Every bipartisan group that has looked at ways to reduce the deficit in a credible way has recommended a balanced approach, meaning a combination of spending cuts and cuts to tax breaks for the wealthy, and the elimination of special interest corporate tax loopholes. The Democratic alternative provides that balanced approach, while the Republican plan, unfortunately, fails that test. Instead, their plan would again rig the rules in favor of the very wealthy and special interests. That may not be a surprise, since virtually every House Republican has signed a pledge--a pledge--to Grover Norquist saying they will not close a single special interest tax loophole, not eliminate a single oil subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction, not one penny. I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that we face a real deficit and debt problem. Apparently, the problem is not big enough to ask folks at the very high end of the income scale to contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. In addition to locking in those parts of the Bush tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, they now have a new round of tax cuts that will provide, on average, a $400,000 tax cut for people making over $1 million a year. That's according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So, here's the key: because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute 1 cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else. Let's take a look at Medicare recipients. They immediately increase costs to seniors for Medicare preventive services and terminate a new service, the wellness programs, that were part of the Affordable Care Act. They immediately reduce support to seniors in the prescription drug plan by reopening the doughnut hole. That decision will cost seniors with high drug costs an average of $10,000 over the next 10 years. Once again, this Republican budget does not reform Medicare; it deforms it. It proposes to end the Medicare guarantee, shifting rising costs onto seniors and disabled individuals. It gives you the equivalent of a voucher, but if your voucher amount is not sufficient to pay for the rising cost of health care, too bad. Too bad. It simply rations your health care and choice of doctor by income and leaves seniors to the whims of the insurance industry. Despite claims that market competition is going to bring down those rising costs, the plan creates that artificial cap on the voucher support. Our Republican colleagues say they're using the part D prescription drug plan as a model, but that has no artificial cap. They say it's the same kind of plan offered to Members of Congress under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, but that has no cap on support from their plans. So, unlike Members of Congress, seniors in Medicare will get vouchers with declining purchasing power relative to rising health care costs. In fact, if you look at this chart, Mr. Chairman, you will see what the current Medicare plan would provide in terms of the amount of support provided by the plan to the individual on health care. That's the blue line. This is the green line, Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, the plan that Members of Congress are on. As you can see, the amount of the premium support keeps pace with rising health care costs. This red line is the Republican voucher plan that caps the amount an individual can receive and goes steadily downward, giving seniors on Medicare a worse deal than Members of Congress would give to themselves. Now, Mr. Chairman, this budget also rips apart the safety net for seniors in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, as well as low-income kids and individuals with disabilities who rely on Medicaid. Remember, two-thirds of Medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals, yet that is one of the biggest areas of the Republican budget cuts. It takes a hatchet to Medicaid, slashing over $800 billion and cutting Medicaid by one-third by the year 2022. This is done under the Orwellian title in their plan of ``repairing'' the social safety net. That's like throwing an anchor to a drowning person. Mr. Chairman, to govern is to choose, and that's what this debate is all about. The choices in this Republican budget are simply wrong for America. It is not bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking them with the bill for rising health care costs. It's not courageous to protect tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and other special interests while slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research, and critical infrastructure. It is not visionary to reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas while terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans. It is certainly not brave to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and poor kids. And it is not fair to raise taxes on middle-income Americans financed by another round of tax breaks for the very wealthy. Yet those are the choices made in this Republican budget. Where is the shared responsibility? Mr. Chairman, we can and we must do better. Let's reject this budget and adopt the Democratic alternative which provides a balanced approach to accomplishing the goal of reducing our deficits while at the same time strengthening our economy and doing it in a way that calls for shared responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman another 15 seconds. These programs will help prepare our future workers for their careers in the next-generation technologies. There's a stark contrast between the Republicans' budget and what my Democratic colleagues and I are proposing. We're at a fork in the road, and I urge my colleagues to avoid the path to poverty by rejecting the Republican budget and coming together to support the balanced approach.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3309, the FCC Process Reform Act. Although the bill's proponents say the legislation is drafted to make the FCC operate more quickly and efficiently, I believe the bill will have the opposite effect. On the surface H.R. 3309 appears innocuous--directing the FCC to do what it already does: analyze the potential harm its rulemaking might have on markets, public institutions and consumers. The problem is that under this bill, FCC procedure would change to require it to formally file its analysis before issuing its ruling. That analysis would be subject to unending litigation and the additional level of procedure will significantly impair the FCC's flexibility to respond in real-time to challenges and expose the FCC to unnecessarily burdensome litigation. This change would hurt companies and consumers alike. If this bill becomes law, all of the FCC's rulemaldng will be subjected to judicial review. Corporations seeking to avoid oversight would have new grounds to sue the FCC just because they disagree with the agency's reasoning. The FCC could be tied up in litigation for years debating whether a cost-benefit-analysis they did was thorough enough or whether sufficient regard was paid to the potential impact of a rule on company's share of the marketplace. One expert said that it could take 15 years just for the courts to clarify the meaning of the provisions in the bill. Additionally, the bill impedes the FCC's ability to accept publicly beneficial commitments made by transacting parties during a merger. For example, if two large internet service providers wanted to merge and promised to provide increased access to low-income consumers in order to address FCC concerns about under-served areas, under the bill, the FCC could not accept that commitment. Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill because by introducing new and unnecessary procedures into the FCC's process, the legislation will limit the FCC's ability to exercise its statutory duty to safeguard the public interest. And, if this bill becomes law, the FCC would be reduced to little more than a reporting agency for Congress.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill because it is a misguided attempt at scoring political point that combines two bad policies and puts them into one piece of legislation. First, it is obvious that the House Republican leadership has brought this bill to the floor the day after introducing their budget in an attempt to distract American seniors from the damaging effects it would have on Medicare. That budget proposes to end the Medicare guarantee, and shifts the rising costs of healthcare onto seniors and disabled individuals. Second, let's look at the facts. Medicare costs already grow at a slower rate than the private insurance industry. We took a huge step in strengthening Medicare and the overall health system in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which includes virtually every cost containment provision recommended by health care experts. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is simply one of the tools in the ACA to help contain costs. It is a failsafe provision that only comes into effect if other reforms in the ACA do not contain costs or Congress chooses not to act to implement new measures that would build upon the kind of changes we made in the Affordable Care Act. Those reforms have already begun to lower Medicare growth rates to historically low levels, which prompted the CBO to project that IPAB will not even become necessary until sometime after 2022. Everyone here knows that IPAB is prohibited by law from rationing health care, increasing premiums, initiating cost-sharing, and recommending benefits cuts--and we also all know that rationing by the insurance industry is precisely what the Republican budget proposes to do. Republican attacks on IPAB are simply a diversion from the fact that House Republicans want to put insurance companies back in charge of American's health care choices. We should not be trying to repeal helpful provisions of the ACA to divert attention from the larger issue: the House Republican budget and its attack on the Medicare guarantee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes. Following are the votes I missed and how I would have voted: On rollcall No. 112, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 113, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 114, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to move the previous question to allow for debate and a vote on the Senate transportation bill. With millions of Americans still unemployed through no fault of their own, what is the House considering today? In the Budget Committee, we are discussing a budget that slashes targeted investments in transportation, scientific research, and education to give additional tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. The proposed budget also dismantles the Medicare guarantee, transferring rising costs of care to seniors. And on the House floor, we have another attempt to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, this time targeting a provision in the law that would address real, systemic health care costs. This is not an agenda that creates jobs or grows our economy. Instead, we should bring forward the Senate transportation bill that received an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74 22 last week. This bill would invest in critical infrastructure projects, supporting over 1.8 million jobs nationwide and over 28,000 in my home state of Maryland. It would help revive the construction industry, which continues to face 17.1 percent unemployment. And it would make our Nation's transportation system safer and more efficient. Mr. Speaker, we must focus our agenda on improving the economy and putting Americans back to work. We have a bipartisan solution to do just that--let's bring it to the Floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the outstanding achievements of the American Physiological Society as it celebrates its 125th anniversary. The APS is a scholarly association dedicated to fostering scientific research, education, and the dissemination of information about human and animal physiology. Its headquarters are in Bethesda in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District. Physiology is the study of how living systems function and plays a pivotal role in advancing medical discovery. The APS is an outstanding example of a not-for-profit organization that supports the advancement of science in the public interest. APS publishes research findings on physiology in its 13 peer-reviewed journals. These journals--the oldest of which has been publishing since 1898--collectively publish about 3,000 research articles each year. All of this scientific content is made freely available on the web 12 months after initial publication. The APS also sponsors scientific meetings nd conferences throughout the year where physiologists can share their latest findings with their colleagues. The APS offers educational outreach programs for students beginning at the elementary school level and provides support to students of physiology in graduate school and beyond. The APS has been recognized with a Presidential Award for Excellence in Scientific, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring, PESMEM, for its long standing effort to increase diversity in physiology and to encourage the progress of underrepresented minority students and professionals. Over the course of 125 years, the APS has grown from 28 founding members to more than 11,000 members. These physiologists teach and conduct research in medical schools, hospitals, colleges, universities, industry, and government throughout the U.S. and 66 other countries. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the APS on its 125th anniversary and honoring this organization for its many accomplishments.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, as Co-Chair of the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I support the responsible development of renewable energy wherever we can generate it--and that includes the development of small conduit hydropower at Bureau of Reclamation facilities. What I cannot support is this legislation's blanket exemption from the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Conducting appropriate environmental reviews is not a barrier to the responsible development of our energy resources; it is a prerequisite for that development. Moreover, NEPA already gives federal agencies the authority to create categorical exemptions for projects that already meet statutory and regulatory criteria. For that reason, I will be supporting the amendment offered by Rep. Napolitano to correct this defect in the underlying bill. If the Napolitano amendment is not adopted, I will oppose final passage and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate National History Day, a year-long academic program focused on improving the teaching and learning of history for 6th to 12th grade students, for receiving a 2011 National Humanities Medal presented on February 13 at the White House by President Obama. Inaugurated in 1997, the National Humanities Medal honors individuals or groups whose work has deepened the nation's understanding of the humanities, broadened citizens' engagement, or helped preserve and expand Americans' access to important resources in the humanities. I am proud to recognize National History Day as the first K 12 education program that has received this honor ``for sparking passion for history in students across our country.'' National History Day is a program that can be integrated into any social studies or history classroom, as it helps teachers expand and enrich the existing curriculum. With schools spending more resources and time focusing on reading and math education, it is important that we also recognize and support programs that help to provide a well- rounded education that raises the bar for students and strengthens the instructional practice of teachers. In every state and in hundreds of communities around the country, National History Day affiliates work with classroom teachers and students who choose historical topics related to a theme and conduct extensive primary and secondary research through libraries, archives, museums, oral history interviews and historic sites. In my own state of Maryland, the Maryland National History Day program is sponsored by the Maryland Humanities Council. Last year about 19,000 students from 158 different middle and high schools participated across the state at the local, state and national levels. The program is an outstanding example of outcome-based and performance-based learning. I am also proud that each June students travel from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories to participate in the culminating four-day event held at the University of Maryland at College Park where professional historians and educators evaluate their projects. Attending the National History Day national contest where students are working in groups as well as individually to make history come alive is truly a unique experience. Each student is able to become an expert on a chosen topic while they further develop college- and career-ready skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and oral and written communication. More than 5 million students have gone on to careers in business, law, medicine and countless other disciplines where they are putting into practice what they learned through National History Day. As legislators, we are all interested in promoting increased student achievement and a deeper understanding of the impact of history on our everyday lives. For 30 years, the National History Day program has been transforming the way history is taught and learned in classrooms all over the country improving education every day.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 2117, which would repeal important consumer and taxpayer protections without providing an alternate solution to safeguard students. Under the Higher Education Act, the federal government, states, and accrediting agencies share responsibility to ensure that students receive a high quality education. As the federal government invests billions in federal student assistance, this ``triad'' must also work together to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse. The Department of Education issued regulations intended to clarify the state's responsibility to authorize institutions and ensure that they have a system in place to address student complaints. The regulations also create a uniform definition of a credit hour, which is used on the federal level to allocate student aid dollars. The Department's Inspector General has advised that the failure to define the credit hour has hampered the Department's ability to address waste and fraud in the student aid program. Finally, the regulations clarify existing requirements that institutions offering distance learning programs be authorized according to the laws of every state in which they operate. I appreciate the concerns of many schools that authorizing in multiple states could be costly and duplicative. For this reason, I strongly support efforts on the State level to establish reciprocity agreements to ease this burden while still ensuring that students receive a quality education. However, in repealing the regulations entirely, this bill ignores the advice of the Inspector General and leaves billions of dollars of student aid vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. It also eliminates basic consumer protections for students. We have a responsibility to ensure that students receive a high quality education and taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. By repealing the Department's efforts but offering no alternate plan, this bill abdicates that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Hoyer. This bill accomplishes three very important objectives: it extends the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans; it extends unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own; and it supports the Medicare program. So I am not here on the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. In fact, I'm confident it will pass. The bill is also significant for what it will not do. Unlike the original Republican House bill which cut compensation for current Federal employees by about $40 billion, this bill does not cut compensation for any current Federal employee, not one cent. Let me repeat that. I'm pleased that Senator Cardin and I and other members of the conference committee were successful in holding harmless our hardworking current Federal employees. That being said, I'm going to vote ``no'' to send a message that enough is enough when it comes to using the Federal workforce as a piggy bank to fund our various national initiatives. Here's why. While no current employees are impacted by this bill, it does cut compensation for future employees hired starting in January 2013; and that will, as Mr. Hoyer said, it will make it much more difficult for us to attract the Federal employees we need to do our national work together as part of our Federal service. And indeed, one-half, a full half of the 10-month extension for unemployment insurance that benefits the entire country, $15 billion is financed by cutting compensation for future Federal employees. That is a disproportionate share from the Federal workforce. The Federal workforce has already contributed over $88 billion toward deficit reduction by the denial of two COLAs and the proposed COLA cut this year, and the Republican transportation bill would cut another $42 billion from Federal employees to finance our national highways. That's a ridiculous approach. Federal employees, as Mr. Hoyer said, are willing to do their fair share to help reduce our deficit, but stop singling them out and making them scapegoats. They had nothing to do with the financial meltdown on Wall Street. They are not the drivers of our national debt. And I am sick and tired of hearing some Members of Congress bad-mouthing and belittling Federal employees.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. They are an easy political target for some, as Mr. Hoyer said, but it is irresponsible to denigrate their good work. These are the men and women who care for our veterans and many of our wounded soldiers. These are the people in our intelligence community who helped track down Osama bin Laden. These are the folks at NIH and elsewhere who help find treatments and cures, that help prevent diseases that plague every American family. They are the folks who protect our borders. They are the folks who help run the Medicare and Social Security system. They're the folks in the Capitol Hill Police that protect this great center of democracy right here. So while this conference report does many good things, we need to send a message that it's time to stop scapegoating Federal employees and using them as the piggy bank for our national objectives.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of the original House STOCK Act, H.R. 1148, I commend my colleagues Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter for their leadership on this issue and will support the version of the legislation we are being asked to vote on today so that we can send it to conference and finalize a stronger product for the American people. While there is broad, bipartisan agreement that Members of Congress, their staff and executive branch officials should not be profiting from non-public information, there are other steps we can and should take to promote transparency and protect the integrity of government. For example, the Senate-passed bill and the original House version of the STOCK Act would require public registration for the ``political intelligence'' industry. That requirement was stripped from today's legislation. Madam Speaker, while I believe this particular version of the STOCK Act can clearly be strengthened, I will support it to move the process forward.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 34, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 35, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to that and would urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his words. I just want to hark back to what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) said, who's in opposition to the bill, but he did make clear that in his opinion this bill is constitutional. I really think we should put that question aside. As the chairman of the committee has pointed out on several occasions, Congress gets the last word on this issue. Congress gets an up-or-down majority vote. We're simply requiring that Congress take a vote on savings that the President recommends for the taxpayer. We believe we should do that in the light of day. It's a small step. It's a little curious to hear one of the solutions offered from some of the folks opposed to this bill is to give the President even more authority. On the one hand they say, well, we shouldn't do this because you're giving the President too much leverage. The amendment they mention, of course, would give the President even more leverage over tax expenditures and mandatory spending, so I'm a little puzzled there. Where I do agree with them is that if we're going to get a hold on this deficit situation, we've got to deal with mandatory spending as well, and we've got to deal with the revenue side of the equation--tax expenditures. And the bipartisan commissions, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin- Domenici, all of them presented a more bipartisan framework for doing that. While I don't agree with every one of their recommendations, I think the framework they presented was the right one. I would agree with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Ryan, here: just because we're not able to tackle the whole thing as part of this reform effort doesn't mean we shouldn't try and tackle a piece of it. And I think this is a small piece, but I think it's an important piece. I think it will have a positive impact on how this body approaches the appropriations bills. Again, the way this process is driven now, it's not a criticism of the Appropriations Committee. They do the best they can under the rules as they exist now. What this bill does is just say let's have one more opportunity, an opportunity to take an up-or-down vote on savings that the President believes we can make toward deficit reduction. And it seems to me that's a positive step to take. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).