Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The last point I would make is that it's very possible the Senate will not take up the piece of legislation that the House passed yesterday because many of them may not want to punish Federal employees. At the same time, this provision that we're offering, being a clean up-or-down vote, the Senate would have to make a judgment as to whether or not to vote up or down on the question of congressional pay. So I hope all of our colleagues will vote to defeat the previous question so we can send this important message and make this statement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank Mr. Hoyer. Reclaiming my time, with respect to the two bills that are the subject of this rule, we are going to have more time to debate them later. I would just say to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) that the American people would love to be able to wish away inflation. I just came from a hearing in the Budget Committee. I'm sure the Chairman of the Federal Reserve would love to be able to wish away inflation. What the gentleman is proposing is that we put together a budget that, unfortunately, would get more and more misleading over time, a baseline for our budget, because it would simply wish away inflation. With respect to the other bill, as some of my colleagues, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), have pointed out, what it does is create this mirage that somehow by providing tax breaks for folks at the very top, you're going to get the economy moving when in fact the most recent Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that at the end of the 10-year period, if you do that, because you add more to the deficit, you actually slow down economic growth. Unfortunately, the way they've got this framed, we don't get that analysis. Now, Mr. Speaker, there's one thing that we can do to show families across the country that we get it, that we realize that they're struggling, and that is, every Member of Congress should set an example by voting for legislation that says in these tough times, we are not going to take for ourselves a cost-of-living increase. If Members vote to defeat the previous question, they'll have an opportunity to vote up or down on it. Now, as Mr. Hoyer said, yesterday there was a piece of legislation on the floor that said we're only going to limit the COLA for Members of Congress if we also punish other Federal employees who have been serving this country, employees who have already contributed in the last 2 years $60 billion to reducing the deficit, folks like people in the intelligence community who helped track down Osama bin Laden and folks who were helping protect the safety of the food supply.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman. I think we should be willing to stand up in front of the American people and just have a clean up-or-down vote, just have a clean up-or- down vote on making the statement that we Members of Congress understand how people are struggling and we're not going to take a cost-of-living increase this year. We haven't taken it for the last couple of years. The country is still struggling and people are still struggling. My friend mentioned American families talking around the kitchen table looking at the budget. Let's show that we understand the reality that many of them are facing. Members of Congress can afford to lead by example, and I hope we will. It will be an important statement, I think, of where this Congress stands. So, again, I thank Mr. Hastings for his leadership. I know at the appropriate time he's going to call for the previous question. If you want to vote to make sure that we pass legislation to not provide cost- of-living increase raises to Members of Congress, then you should vote to defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start by saying to the chairman of the Budget Committee and all of the members of the Budget Committee that we appreciated the dialogue that we've had on the budget reform bills. There is one bill that I understand we'll take up next week where at least the chairman of the committee and myself were able to find some bipartisan consensus. That's the expedited procedure, legislative line item veto bill where you've got some Democrats and Republicans in favor of it, and some Democrats and Republicans against it. But with respect to the two bills before us today, Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid they fall far short. In fact, I think they would take us in the wrong direction. First of all, just to be clear, because we'll probably hear a lot of talk today about the importance of moving the economy forward and jobs: Neither of these bills will do one thing, not one thing to help get our economy moving again. They won't do one thing to create and help create jobs in this country. Now, with respect to this particular piece of legislation that we're dealing with now, which actually is a step toward requiring some kind of dynamic scoring by CBO and the Joint Tax Committee, it's very misleading. Here's the concern. If you look at the current House rules, current House rules already require that we have an economic analysis for major tax legislation. What this particular piece of legislation does is say, yeah, we're going to ask for an economic analysis, but it tilts the playing field in favor of one kind of fiscal action. So, for example, it says we're going to consider whether or not tax policy affects the economy. But when it comes to major investments, for example, infrastructure, transportation, investments that we all know have historically helped this country grow, whether it was the highway system, whether it's been investments in other major infrastructure around this country, they've all had major economic growth benefits, but those are specifically excluded to the extent that they're involved in the appropriations process. So we're looking at only one-half of the equation, revenues, not important investments, at least to the extent that they go through the appropriations process. Now, a word on the revenue piece. What's very curious is the way this bill is drafted. We would not get an economic analysis on one of the most consequential tax changes this body could take in the remaining year. We all know that we face the question of what to do with the expiring tax cuts, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, both on middle-income Americans, but also the tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the folks at the very top, the top 2 percent. Now, under current House rules, we get an analysis of any legislation that was designed to extend those tax cuts going forward. But the way this is designed, the statute, we're going to get an answer that says well, we're already assuming the tax cuts for the folks at the very top are going to go on forever. Now, the reason that's very curious is that the Congressional Budget Office has in fact already done analyses in the past of what might happen if we were to extend the tax cuts for the folks at the very top. And if you look at their analyses, and they did one in September of 2010, you'll find at the end of the 10-year period, they find that those tax cuts will slow down economic growth. Why would that be? Because those tax cuts add to the deficit. That deficit crowds out private investment. That creates a drag on the economy. We had a similar conclusion from testimony that was given by the Joint Tax Committee in September of 2011, just last September. The same conclusion. At the end of the 10-year period, you'd actually have a slowdown in economic growth. So it's a little perplexing to find out why we're drafting something that would not require a study of one of the most consequential decisions that this Congress might make. And so for those reasons, Mr. Chairman--one, that we're not even counting the investment side of the equation with respect to the consequences for economic growth, and number two, the fact that this isn't even going to trigger an analysis of one of the biggest revenue decisions this body will make--we have to oppose the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset of his remarks, Mr. Price referenced the economy and the President's plan. I think it is important to remember that when the President came before this body for the first State of the Union address, the economy was in absolute free fall. In fact, we now know it was even worse than people realized at the time. We were losing GDP at a rate of more than 7 percent. We were losing over 800,000 jobs in this country every month. And as a result of the passage of the recovery bill, the Congressional Budget Office, the same nonpartisan, independent office that this bill is asking for a report from, has told Congress that because of the recovery bill, we saved or created up to 3 million jobs in 2010. Those are the facts reported by the Congressional Budget Office, that we helped reduce unemployment in this country in 2011 by over 1.4 percent. When you're headed down fast, you've got to stop the slide, pick yourself up and begin to climb back up. And that's what the President and the earlier Congress did together. Now, are we where we want to be? Of course not. That's why it's important that we begin to move forward on the jobs plan the President asked this Congress to take up last September, major new investment in infrastructure, stuff that will really help move the economy. We haven't voted on that. I hope we'll move forward on the payroll tax cut extension for 160 million Americans. We should do that quickly. So let's remember that this economy was in tatters. It has at least gotten a little bit back up on its feet, but we have a whole, long way to go still. Unfortunately, this bill today won't do one thing--not a thing--to help it. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I hope if our Republican colleagues are going to keep asking CBO for these reports that they'll read those reports, because if you read the CBO's analysis of the impact of the Recovery Act, they've been very clear that in the year 2010, it helped save or create up to 3 million jobs. That's what CBO says. It also says in the year 2011, it helped reduce unemployment by over 1.4 percent. That's what the Congressional Budget Office says. Now we're asking the Congressional Budget Office for a study here. I think we should take into account in some of our comments their findings that they've already delivered to us. With respect to the situation the President inherited, again, the economy was in total free fall. Yes, it's kind of like when you're trying to run up an escalator that's going down really fast. When you first get on, you're going to go down until you stop it, until you stop it, and then you take action to try to run. You're trying to run in place through the actions you're taking. First you don't feel like you're moving up, but we're finally moving up. The President inherited an economy like an escalator going down very fast. And we passed a recovery bill. It stopped the free fall and stabilized the economy. We need to take more steps; and I wish our colleagues, Republican colleagues, would bring to the floor some of the bills that will help it. But let's just remember that for the last 22 months, we've actually created up to 3 million jobs, in fact, over 3 million jobs in the economy. Are we where we want to be? No. But let's not go back. Let's not go back to the same policies that got us into this same mess to begin with. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) who has been very focused on budget issues for a long time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Federal employees have already seen a 2-year freeze, which saved $60 billion, and Federal employees are willing to do their share. What we should not do is single them out. Now, the President has asked for a one-half percent cost-of-living adjustment. That still is short of the 1.7 percent cost-of-living that they will face. So it's time that we stop saying to those folks who are out there every day helping keep our food safe, helping track down Osama bin Laden, other people who help protect our borders, and do other things that we're going to single them out for unfair treatment as part of the budget. Let's take it up as part of the full budget and not single them out the way we're doing here. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 1, 2012. Hon. Eric I. Cantor, Majority Leader, House of Representatives. Representative Cantor: We are writing to request that the bill, H.R. 3858 to extend the pay freeze on Members of Congress, be placed on the suspension calendar. Federal employees have seen no cost-of-living adjustment for two years and will lose $60 billion in income over 10 years. We believe that members should have the opportunity to vote to freeze the pay of members of Congress without cutting pay for all Federal employees. Sincerely, Chris Van Hollen, Member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi, Member of Congress. Steny H. Hoyer, Member of Congress.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. This illustrates the point exactly. As I said, Madam Speaker, we have been denied that opportunity by the Republican leadership, so I want to just be clear. We were denied the opportunity today to have an up-or-down vote on freezing congressional pay. That's what we should do, and the refusal to allow us to do that demonstrates that what we're really seeing is an effort to use congressional pay as a political weapon to punish all Federal employees: to prevent any COLAs--cost-of-living adjustments-- for Federal employees. Otherwise we would be able to bring up that bill separately. Now, what we're seeing again is an effort to single out Federal employees as scapegoats for the economic problems that they had nothing to do with--they had nothing to do with the meltdown on Wall Street; they had nothing to do with the policies of the previous administration that helped bring our economy to this position. Yet what we're seeing today is what we're seeing in States, where we have Governors in Wisconsin, where we have Governors in Ohio, where we have other, mostly Republican, Governors scapegoating public servants in their States and singling them out as if they were the problem.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I think the record should be clear that every year that the Congress has frozen Federal employee pay, we have also frozen congressional pay. What we have not done is try to hold Federal employee pay hostage to what we do on congressional pay. We should also be very clear that all of us on the Democratic side support freezing congressional pay in the year 2013. Indeed, Mr. Cummings and I, Mr. Hoyer and others have introduced legislation to do just that. It's H.R. 3858. The Democratic leadership asked that we be able to bring that up on the suspension calendar today, and we were denied that opportunity. So I now ask unanimous consent that, after we complete debate on this bill, we add to today's suspension calendar H.R. 3858 so that we can vote as a body on freezing congressional pay.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, H.R. 1173 exemplifies the GOP agenda in the 112th Congress: to reject constructive Democratic ideas, and fail to introduce any practical solutions to our nation's problems. I think we are all in agreement that the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports, CLASS, Program--in its current form--needs work. However, simply repealing it conveniently ignores that we have a long- term care crisis in this country. Private long-term care insurance is too costly for most Americans and the alternative, spending down their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid, is financially devastating. Medicaid now accounts for nearly half of all long-term care spending, and as the nation's baby boomers age, federal and state budgets will face further strain. The CLASS program is intended to lessen the burden, providing working families a national, voluntary, and premium- financed insurance program that enables them to responsibly plan for long-term care. Secretary Sebelius made the right decision to delay implementation of program because, under existing parameters, it could not be done in a financially solvent way. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that the program would run surpluses through approximately 2029 but would begin adding to the budget deficit after that. We need to fix that. But let's try to mend it, not end it. Let's exhaust all of our options, confer with experts and beneficiaries, and see if we can find a viable path forward for the CLASS program. We must make every effort to make it solvent before we leave seniors and disabled individuals to the status quo for the foreseeable future.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I advise my colleagues of the death on January 4, 2012 of my constituent, civil rights leader and education activist, Roscoe R. Nix. Roscoe Nix was an inspirational giant in the Montgomery County, Maryland community where he was known for his wisdom, his kind and caring manner, and his fierce dedication to social and educational equality for all Americans. Mr. Nix worked passionately for decades as a leading civil rights activist, drawing attention to racial inequalities throughout our country. Roscoe Russa Nix was born June 22, 1921, in Greenville, Alabama, the second of nine children and the son of the only black postman in town. Mr. Nix attended Alabama A&M University but left to serve in the Army in Europe during World War II. After his military service, he settled in the Washington area and graduated from Howard University. He moved to Montgomery County in 1968 where he resided until 2010 when, for health reasons, he moved near his daughter in Riverdale, Georgia. Growing up in segregated Alabama, Roscoe Nix had firsthand experience with Jim Crow laws and the injustice of institutionalized racism. After moving to the Washington, DC area, Mr. Nix observed that northern states were more likely to have simply overlooked their own records of discrimination. He recalled being refused service at a Silver Spring, Maryland restaurant in 1962 and the demonstration he staged in response. Moments like this defined his career and inspired him to work for change. During our Nation's post-segregation era, Mr. Nix worked for the U.S. Justice Department's Community Relations Service, traveling around the country as a ``peacemaker'' to work with local leaders on conflict resolution in cities experiencing civil unrest. For decades, Mr. Nix was a leader in public education in Montgomery County. In 1974, he was the second African American elected to the Montgomery County Board of Education where he fought against de facto school segregation. As a member of the Board until 1978 and then afterwards, he pushed for greater resources for schools in poorer neighborhoods and spoke out about racial disparities in the schools. Mr. Nix was a champion for early childhood initiatives and fought for increased funding of Head Start and Title 1 and for lower class size in the elementary grades. In 2006, the Montgomery County Board of Education dedicated the Roscoe R. Nix Elementary School in Silver Spring in recognition of his contributions to the public education of the children in the county. In 1989, Mr. Nix co-founded the Montgomery County African American Festival of Academic Excellence. This annual event recognizes, encourages and celebrates African American students for their academic achievements and reinforces the idea that it is ``cool'' to be smart. Serving as President of the Montgomery County chapter of the NAACP from 1980-90, Roscoe Nix spoke out against police mistreatment of minorities and worked to increase the number of African American officers on the police force. In 2001, Mr. Nix was inducted into the Montgomery County Human Rights Hall of Fame. After receiving the honor, he said, ``So much of what Montgomery County is today is because of struggle. . . . It's hard, especially for young people, to remember how we got where we are today.'' He noted, ``Blessings come to people through someone else's help or through some unknown entity. Because of that, it is our obligation to use whatever it is that one of us has to help those who are less fortunate or who may be afraid to speak for themselves.'' These guiding words and the legacy and achievements of Roscoe R. Nix will live on in Montgomery County, in Maryland, and across our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this extraordinary American and in offering our condolences to Mr. Nix's wife of 59 years, Emma Coble Nix; his two daughters, Veretta Nix and Susan Webster; his sister, Anita Jackson; his three brothers, Crispus Carey Nix, Pettis Nix and Comer Nix; and his three grandchildren.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Michigan. We have our colleagues on the Republican side taking the position of the so-called Grover Norquist pledge, a pledge to Grover Norquist's organization as opposed to the pledge we all take to do our best to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And under that pledge, if you close a corporate tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction, you have violated your pledge. If you say, ``You know what? Gas prices are doing really well. Oil companies are doing just great. We don't think they need a taxpayer subsidy. We are going to get rid of it,'' you can't get rid of that if you are going to use some of that money for deficit reduction. It's a violation of the pledge. So, yes, let's get serious about deficit reduction. Let's take a balanced approach. We have a bipartisan model--at least a framework--in Simpson-Bowles. Let's be serious about that. But the reason this process on the floor of the House today is not serious is because everybody recognizes the United States can't afford to default on its full faith and credit--everybody, that is, except for the folks who are apparently going to vote to say we can't raise the debt ceiling, that we are not going to take responsibility for paying for obligations already due and owing, budgets already passed. What kind of message is that to our children? You've got to pay for your debts. But you know what? You don't really have to; wink, wink, nod, nod. Go ahead and buy those things on your credit card and then decide the next day you are not going to pay for them. What a terrible message that is. So let's take responsibility, I will say to our colleagues, for our actions. Let's not play political games. And most of all, let's not follow the advice that our Republican colleagues today are recommending which would undoubtedly, if taken seriously, result in economic chaos and a huge loss of jobs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Levin. You know, day after day, month after month, we hear Members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--come to the floor of this House and say we've got to do more on jobs, we've got to make sure that we get this fragile economy moving again. Unfortunately, while we say those things in this body, we haven't yet taken up the President's jobs initiative that he presented to this Congress last September. We've taken little bits and pieces here and there. We've had 2 months now in the payroll tax cut--that's good news, I hope we can get the rest of it--but the rest of it has been absolutely ignored. But at least people said they wanted to focus on job creation and getting the economy moving again. And what's incredible about today is we have our Republican colleagues advocating a course of action which, if we took them seriously, would wreak absolute havoc on the economy. It would destroy jobs throughout the economy. That's not just me saying it, that's Republican economists, independent economists, Democratic economists. If the United States, for the first time in its history, refused to pay its debts, if the United States, for the first time in its history, refused to make good on the full faith and credit of the United States, the economy would fall to pieces, millions of people would lose their jobs. You know, if we want to be taken seriously we have to be serious about the consequences of our actions. And if we take the course of action being presented, we'd have a fiasco on our hands. Look, the American people I think understand full well what's going on here, but I do think it's important to make clear what the debt ceiling does. You raise the debt ceiling in order to cover obligations already made. If we don't lift the debt ceiling, it's as if we woke up one morning and said, you know, we're not going to pay our mortgage, or if you went out and purchased goods and services with a credit card and said, hey, you know what, we're not going to pay our credit card today. Well, you know what happens? You lose your house if you do that. The credit card company comes after you for that. If the United States of America was to renege on the full faith and credit of its obligations, it would be a disaster in the international economy, and yet that is apparently the course of action being advocated by our Republican colleagues today. Now, what makes this really political theater is everybody knows that more responsible Members of Congress and certainly the President of the United States are not going to let that happen. They are not going to allow that reckless outcome to happen. And that's why, in so many ways, this is unfortunately just political theater; and it's one of the things, frankly, that contributes to the American people's low view of the Congress, this kind of political game playing. Another thing that contributes to that is Members of Congress' refusal to take responsibility for their own actions. Last year, we had the Republican budget on the floor of the House. There are major differences in the priorities between the Republican budgets and the Democratic budgets. But the reality is the Republican budget that was overwhelmingly voted for by our Republican colleagues would require us to lift the debt ceiling of the United States, the very debt ceiling that our Republican colleagues are now telling us they don't want to increase. It would require us. It would have added $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. How is it that people can come down and vote for a budget that says we're going to ask the United States to take on these additional obligations and then vote for a motion, a resolution, that refuses to take responsibility for those very actions? And I think that's why the American people are understandably losing much of the confidence certainly in this House of Representatives. Obviously, we have big challenges with respect to the deficit. Let's get together and solve them. But as my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, in order to do that, we have to come to the table in the spirit of compromise. And we have before the country a number of approaches. We've had a number of bipartisan commissions. We have Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin- Domenici. They have established a framework for resolving the deficit issue. All of their frameworks say, yes, we have to make some tough decisions on making cuts, but we also have to deal with the revenue side of the equation. And the major obstacle--let's just be clear--to dealing with the revenue side of the equation is we have a lot of folks who have taken the position that you can't close one corporate tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements of my constituent, Mr. Gregory V. Hamilton. Greg is dedicated and he is passionate, and he has devoted his entire life to serving our country, his community, and the causes he champions so well. Many Montgomery County residents know him by his signature braids and his colorful garb that reflect his love of country, his Native American heritage, and his pride as a Vietnam veteran. Unfortunately, Greg's braids are gone now, a victim to the cancer that is ravaging his body because of his exposure to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam in 1969 and 1970. Greg served in the U.S. Navy and was honorably discharged in 1970. He received numerous medals and ribbons for his service, including the Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon and the Combat Action Ribbon for his service on the USS Hickman County LST 825 in the Brown Water Navy in Vietnam. Despite his lifelong fight against the effects of Agent Orange--or maybe because of it--he is passionate about improving the lives of veterans nationwide, and he has dedicated himself to doing so. A lifetime member of Vietnam Veterans of America and a committed member of Rolling Thunder Maryland Chapter 1, Greg has for many years been a part of the Wall Washing Crew, volunteers who wash and maintain the Vietnam Veterans Memorial from April to November each year. He also participates in the arrival of ``Honor Flights,'' greeting and escorting World War II veterans to the Memorial in Washington, DC. Greg has been active in assisting those affected by military life ever since his own discharge 40 years ago. He supports military families by sharing with them his own experiences and offering advice. He was critical to the creation of the Montgomery County Commission on Veterans Affairs and, most recently, he has been involved in the Mental Health Association of Montgomery County's initiative ``Serving Together: Troops, Veterans, and Family Care Project.'' He has tirelessly provided support and care for military families throughout our community. Greg is of African-American and Cherokee descent. He maintains a strong connection to his Native American heritage, having spent much of his life working with Native American organizations. In 2002, he was elected Council President of the American Indian Heritage and Education Association, Inc., an organization that serves the Native American community by honoring Native American culture and providing outreach to veterans and their families. In 1995, he helped plan the first American Indian Heritage Day Powwow in Montgomery County. More recently, he has produced two public access cable shows--``American Indians: Past and Present'' and ``Our Veterans, Our Warriors.'' Greg's professional career has also been devoted to public service. He has served on countless boards and committees around Montgomery County. For example, he was President of the Park Ritchie Tenants' Association, Inc., served on the Board of Directors of Suburban Maryland Fair Housing, Inc., served three terms as a Councilmember for the City of Takoma Park, and served as chair of the Takoma Park Cable TV Advisory Board, the Montgomery County Community Leadership Task Force on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, and the Public, Health and Safety Committee and the Housing Committee of the City Council. Greg's level of community involvement is extraordinary--he has never hesitated to be involved, to take a stand and to make a difference. Every resident of Montgomery County, Maryland and every veteran in America owes a debt of gratitude to Greg Hamilton for his dedicated, selfless, and passionate work. I am proud to speak today to honor this extraordinary man. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Greg's many accomplishments, his lifelong work on behalf of our Nation's veterans and his profound commitment to honoring their service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, first my Republican colleagues opposed extending the current payroll tax cut for the middle class. Then they decided they would support it after all--but they objected to asking millionaires help pay for it and insisted that a completely unrelated and controversial project called the Keystone XL pipeline be included in the final package. Now, by a lopsided vote of 89-10, the Senate has sent the House a short term measure negotiated by Democratic Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell to prevent taxes from going up on 160 million Americans next year, offset with a provision both parties can support-- with an accelerated decision on the Keystone XL pipeline due in sixty days. So what are the House Republicans doing? Trying to kill the bipartisan Senate bill. In fact, they won't even allow a straight up or down vote on it--because if they did, they know it would pass. Americans need look no further than this reckless year-end gambit by the extreme right wing of the Republican Party to understand why their government has ceased to function. Like President Obama and virtually every Democrat in this House, I would rather be voting on a year-long extension for the current payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance for those who remain out of work through no fault of their own, and reasonable compensation for physicians who participate in the Medicare program. Additionally, I would prefer a balanced approach to paying for these measures--and I oppose mandating a precipitous decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. But in order to ensure 160 million Americans don't see a tax increase on January 1, and to give negotiators more time to reach final agreement on a fully paid-for year-long package, I am prepared to support the Senate's bipartisan short term extension. Mr. Speaker, Senate Democrats have approved this legislation. Senate Republicans have approved this legislation. And House Democrats are prepared to approve this legislation. If House Republicans block it, they will have to explain to the American people why rigid ideology was more important than helping create more jobs and boosting our fragile economy.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are being asked to vote on today will fund the rest of the federal government through September 30, 2012 and provide $8.1 billion for disaster aid and recovery assistance. The bills before us are the result of a long, drawn out and at times contentious process, and the outcome is very much the product of hard fought compromise. In candor, this package contains a number of provisions and policy choices that I would not have made and do not support. But I recognize that is the nature of compromise. On a positive note, the bill adheres to the bipartisan $1.043 trillion topline agreement from the Budget Control Act. With our national debt now topping $15 billion, it is important that we continue to maintain fiscal discipline. Additionally, the bill provides modest increases to a number of key federal investments. The Title I education program to help our kids gain proficiency in reading and math is funded at $14.5 billion, which is $60 million above the FY 2011 level. Special education gets a $100 million boost for a total of $11.6 billion to help our schools meet the educational needs of all our students. Head Start is funded at $8 billion, which is $424 million more than last year. And the National Institutes of Health receives a $299 increase to sustain its lifesaving research. Renewable energy research and development is level funded at $1.8 billion, small business loans receive a $123 increase, and the maximum Pell Grant is maintained at $5550 so that more of our young people can pursue their dream of a higher education. These are all genuine achievements in our current fiscally constrained environment and deserve to be applauded. On the other hand, this bill continues the current majority's relentless and misguided attack on the Environmental Protection Agency, which has already seen its budget slashed by 18 percent over the past fiscal year. To feed the extreme right's ideological fervor, today's legislation targets the EPA Administrator's office with a 33 percent cut, slashes clean air and climate research and decreases the job- creating Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water revolving funds by $101 million. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Americans across the political spectrum want clean air and clean water, and they are depending on their government to provide it to them. While some in other party might think this is good politics, it is terrible policy for the American people. With winter approaching, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, is inadequately funded at $3.5 billion. And despite the elimination of ideologically driven policy riders on priorities like health care and Wall Street reform, this appropriations legislation still includes too much policy interference on issues ranging from reproductive health to workplace safety to light bulb efficiency standards to climate change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. The American people should understand very clearly what's going on here right now, and that is that the Republican majority in this House of Representatives is refusing to allow a vote in this House on the Senate bipartisan compromise. They are refusing to even allow a vote on a bill that received 89 of 100 votes in the Senate, including 85 percent of the Senate Republicans. What are they so afraid of? It's very clear that the Republican leadership is afraid that that same bipartisanship that took place in the Senate will take place right here in the House because they don't want a bipartisan bill; otherwise, we would have a vote on it. What we are witnessing today, Mr. Speaker, is the triumph of Tea Party extremism over the good of the country. The sad part is, we probably shouldn't be surprised because it was just a few months ago that the Republican leadership was opposed to extending the payroll tax cut at all. They originally said that raising taxes on 160 million Americans would be okay, no problem. I have a long list of statements from Republican House leaders to that effect. Then two things happened: A whole lot of economists told us what was common sense; that, in fact, if you raise taxes on 160 million Americans, it will hurt the economy. And it also began to sound a little strange for our Republican colleagues to be zealously protecting tax breaks for special interests and for millionaires while allowing tax increases on 160 million Americans. So they changed their story. Then it was, We couldn't do this because it was going to hurt the Social Security trust fund--that coming from the party that wanted to privatize Social Security. And then the Social Security actuary told us and the country that it wouldn't take 1 cent from the Social Security trust fund. So now we have a whole different story today. Now the same folks who were opposed to any continuation of the payroll tax cut say they oppose the bipartisan Senate bill because it is only for 2 months, and now they are preventing a vote on that bill. The consequence is going to be very clear: On January 1, 160 million Americans are going to see their payroll taxes increased. At the end of the day, the Republican majority here in the House is going to go home. They're going to go home. But you know what will remain here? The Senate bipartisan bill, because we will never have voted on it. So, at any time in the next several weeks, we can all come right back here and in a matter of 5 minutes, send that bill to the President's desk, which he said he will sign, and make sure that we avoid a payroll tax increase on 160 million Americans. Make sure that folks who are unemployed through no fault of their own get unemployment compensation; make sure that doctors will continue to be paid when they treat Medicare patients, so they can serve those patients. It will be sitting right here for 3 weeks. Why? Because the Republican majority won't let us vote on it. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to tell us why you refuse to allow a vote on the Senate bipartisan bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You didn't answer my question. The question is, Why can't we have a vote?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise to oppose this Defense Authorization Conference Report. This is the first Defense Authorization Conference Report I have opposed since I was first elected in 2002. I cannot support this Conference Report because it limits the tools available to detain and prosecute terror suspects and could have the unintended effect of weakening our national security. As currently written, the language in the Report also creates potentially dangerous and costly confusion about the roles of the military and law enforcement officials during the arrest of terror suspects. At the same time, certain provisions leave open the possibility that innocent U.S. citizens could be wrongfully and indefinitely detained at the direction of the President without appropriate access to civilian courts. The mix of tools currently available to the Executive Branch has strengthened our national security. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have convicted and imprisoned hundreds of terrorists, while the military tribunals have convicted only a half-dozen. Why would we want to tip the scales toward a less effective enforcement tool? Why tie our own hands? Sections 1021 and 1022 of the Report will generate confusion as to whether the military or the FBI and civilian law enforcement agencies have custody over terror suspects. Today, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Mueller expressed concern and uncertainty about the confusing directives in the Report that could cause misunderstandings between the FBI and the military regarding the detention of covered individuals during the crucial early moments of an arrest when information gathering is most important. He described an example where a terrorist arrest in a city like New York could cause unnecessary confusion and conflict between city law enforcement and the military because New York City is not a military controlled area. He also worries about how the situation would play out if a group of detainees--some covered, others not--are captured at the same time and what impact this might have on the handling of their cases. There is also much confusion about the indefinite detention authority in section 1021 of the measure. Some say that this section does not apply to U.S. citizens, but if that was the intention of the conferees, American citizens should have been specifically exempted the way they were in Section 1022 regarding mandatory military detention. The fact that American citizens were expressly exempted from mandatory military detention under section 1022--but not exempted under section 1021-- suggests that Congress is implicitly endorsing the idea that American citizens may be indefinitely detained under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. If Congress is going to spell out the rules of arrest and detention, it should have made clear that American citizens may not be indefinitely detained without due process of law. How U.S. citizens are to be treated when detained as terror suspects and the question of jurisdictional leadership during terror-related arrests are matters of such supreme national consequence that they should not have been expeditiously appended to a National Defense Authorization Conference Report. These important issues should have had the benefit of debate and close examination that can only happen during regular order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act. I thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for crafting this important, bipartisan bill. H.R. 1905 was reported out of the Foreign Affairs Committee by voice vote and comes to the floor with over 350 cosponsors--of which I am one. We must make it clear to Iran that any pursuit of a nuclear weapons program is unacceptable. This bill is designed to significantly strengthen the hand of the Obama Administration in applying economic pressure on the Iranian regime. Specifically, the bill targets Iran's petroleum sector by expanding the activities that could trigger sanctions to include making certain petroleum resource agreements with Iran. It also requires the President, subject to a national security waiver, to impose sanctions on entities doing business with the Central Bank of Iran if he determines the Central Bank is linked to the Iranian nuclear program. The measure also requires entities filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose business ties with Iran. By most accounts, the sanctions passed by Congress last year have ratcheted up pressure on the Iranian government. But Iran continues to increase its stockpile of enriched uranium. This measure is necessary to give the President the tools to penalize the Iranian regime for its continual refusal to heed the objections of the international community. I encourage my colleagues who have not already expressed support for H.R. 1905 to join me in support of the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3421, a bill to award Congressional Gold Medals to the heroes of 9/11. During the attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2,996 Americans lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a field in rural Pennsylvania. Many more might have perished had hundreds of law enforcement officers, emergency workers and State and local government employees, not sprung into action to help evacuate the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and, in the case of the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93, averted greater disaster by sacrificing themselves. The three gold medals this legislation awards, will be permanently displayed at the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania, the National September 11 Memorial in New York and the Memorial at the Pentagon as a constant and visible reminder of the exceptional acts of heroism exercised on that tragic day. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3421, I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the many heroic men and women who put themselves in harm's way on September 11th, 2001 with this Congressional Gold Medal.