Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think the American people just heard a new definition of compromise: Paying your bills is a compromise. The American family can't wake up one morning and say, Boy, it's a compromise to pay for what I've already incurred. It's a compromise to pay my mortgage. That's a new one for the American people. And it's part of a reckless pattern that we've seen emerging here. First our Republican colleagues walked out of the Biden talks. Twice they walked out of talks with the President of the United States. Then, when the Republican leader in the Senate put forward a proposal, they ridiculed it. Then, Thursday night, in this very House, they said ``no'' to the proposal by the Republican Speaker of this House until he amended--the same Speaker who said we need to have an adult moment. Here's the concluding paragraph of today's Wall Street Journal: Republicans are not looking like adults to whom we can entrust the government. The American people are looking for that adult moment. If you're not willing to compromise on critical things for the country, you are not fit to govern. And that is why Senator Reid put forward a compromise proposal. He doesn't like his own proposal. He would be the first to tell you that. But you know what it did? It met the criteria our Republican colleagues put forward--$2.4 trillion in cuts. And even if you take out the war savings, more guaranteed cuts, according to CBO, than the Boehner proposal the other night. It also incorporates McConnell's proposal. Here's what it doesn't do. It doesn't end the Medicare guarantee. It doesn't cut Social Security. And it doesn't protect tax breaks for special interest corporations. What we're seeing here is people are holding the American economy hostage. You have to stop playing kamikaze pilot with the future of the American people in order to extract a hundred percent of demands for budgets your way. Compromise is necessary. And that is what Senator Reid put forward, a compromise proposal. Let's show we can govern together.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Madam Speaker, there is a little pattern emerging here. First we had our Republican colleagues walk out of the Biden talks. And then twice they walked out of talks with the President. And then they totally rejected a proposal put forward by the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. And last night they said ``no'' to the proposal put forward by their own Speaker. And that brings us to where we are today. In order to accommodate the more extreme elements of the Republican Caucus, they had to change the bill once again. Now what they are proposing is that ultimately we turn budget authority over not to the elected Representatives but to a Federal judge who would ultimately decide how we're going to deal with our budget. You talk about passing the buck, you talk about not taking responsibility, now is the time to come together to come up with a reasonable compromise, not to move the parties far apart. The last point I want to make with regards to the deficit: We want to make sure that we have a plan, a balanced plan, to reduce the deficit. I'm just waiting for my colleagues on the other side to say that they're willing to get one penny from eliminating taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies or closing corporate loopholes for jets--just one penny--for the purpose of deficit reduction. Then we'll know that they're serious about that. The President has said let's do $3 in spending cuts and $1 in revenue. But apparently asking $1 in revenue by eliminating a subsidy for the oil companies, that's too far. Oh, yes, we owe China. We need to do something about our debt to China, but asking the oil companies to take less taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer subsidy dollars, no, we can't do that. Let's be serious about balancing the budget and getting the deficit under control, but let's do it in a balanced way. This proposal takes us further in the wrong direction and doesn't bring us together to solve a problem for the American people. Now is the time to get serious.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 45 seconds just to say that we, as a body, need to do two things: Number one, we need to make sure the United States pays its bills. We need to make sure it pays its bills, and we shouldn't do it in a way that puts the American economy in jeopardy every 5 months. Just listen to the folks, the experts who have been monitoring this. They have said that if you do this on a 5-month period, you will risk interest rates going up. Second, we need to reduce the deficit. Of course we do. Let's do it in a balanced way. The President has proposed $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue, but we can't get our colleagues on the Republican side to get one penny--not one penny--of revenue from closing a corporate tax loophole if the purpose is deficit reduction. And there is the rub. So let's reject this wrong approach. Senator Reid has a proposal on the table. It cuts more than the one that the Republicans have, but it doesn't put the economy in jeopardy every 5 months. Mr. Speaker, I yield the last minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi), the terrific Democratic leader in the House.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We keep hearing from our colleagues that there wasn't a proposal put forward by the President. The framework is pretty clear, and we can sort of solve this particular piece of it today, if possible. He said he will do $3 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue for deficit reduction. If someone wants to take us up on that offer while we're talking about it on the floor, that would be just terrific. Because our Republican colleagues walked out of that discussion, Senator Reid did put on the table a proposal that has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I have their score in my hand, dated July 27, 2011. It would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion, more than the $917 billion score in the Republican proposal. This is a nonpartisan, independent CBO score. The difference is he would raise the debt ceiling for 2 years so we don't keep the economy under a cloud, so we don't keep the threat of higher interest rates going into effect, which would be a hit on every American family. Why we would choose to deliberately keep the economy under a cloud and put jobs at risk is a mystery. The only answer is our Republican colleagues want to use that as a forcing mechanism to ultimately put in place their budget plan, which does end the Medicare guarantee, which does slash education and does protect corporate tax loopholes. With that, I yield 1 minute to a terrific member of the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, of course we should be reducing the deficit. Of course we should make sure that we don't rely on the Chinese as our bankers any more, which is why it's so ironic that our Republican colleagues refuse to cut subsidies for oil companies by one penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit so we don't have to rely on borrowing from China anymore. In fact, if you look at Exxon's quarterly profits today, they're through the roof. Now, I'm all for having Exxon make money. But why should they have taxpayer money on top of it? And yet our Republican colleagues get up here and they talk about how we're dependent on China. But they don't want to break that dependency if it means actually asking the top oil companies to get rid of their subsidies for the purpose of deficit reduction. So let's get serious. Now, with respect to the plan that has been put forward by Senator Reid. I listened to my colleague. I would point out to the body that if you look at the Republican budget and the documents that accompanied it when they pointed out what their savings were relative to the CBO baseline, they also show a trillion dollars in savings from the global war on terror. As my friend the chairman knows, that is a function of the way the Congressional Budget Office scores. But it is also a fact that when the Republican budget was presented, they presented it both relative to the President's baseline and the congressional budget baseline. I would further make the point that even if you took that off the table, the proposal by Senator Reid cuts immediately more on spending than the Republican proposal before us today, the difference being he doesn't keep the economy hanging under a cloud for 5 months and make this country go through this exercise just by the end of December. With that, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member of Congress from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, you know what we've seen play out here is, a few years back, we provided the tax breaks that went disproportionately to the very wealthy in this country. Now all of a sudden--oh, well, we can't pay our bills anymore, a good part of that reason being the tax cuts. But how are we going to deal with those bills? We're going to sock it to middle class America, whether it's through cuts in education or cuts to Medicare, and all because we don't want to cut subsidies for the oil companies. Again, as I said, just today, Exxon reported huge profits. God bless them for making all that money. But why do they need any of ours, our taxpayer money? And that is the rub of the issue. It's not whether we reduce the deficit; it's how. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I was listening to my friend, I really don't think the American people want us to be doing this every 5 months so that it becomes business as usual that we put the country through this crisis situation and with the threat of rising interest rates and all the other negative economic consequences that would happen. Because the grand bargain is now off the table, Senator Reid has put forward a proposal. Again, I have the CBO scoring of it right here: $2.2 trillion, with more cuts than in the proposal that's on the table here from our Republican colleagues, the big difference being he doesn't want to say every 5 months ``let's put the country into economic crisis'' and deal with all the uncertainty between now and 5 months from now that that will create. With that, I yield 1 minute to a terrific member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It's high time that we stopped playing Russian roulette with the American economy and American jobs. And yet that is exactly what this measure does, for the following reason. It says, Okay, America, we're going to pay America's bills, but only for 5 more months--and only if we put in motion a plan that will end the Medicare guarantee and slash education. The proposal before us today will put the American economy and American jobs at even greater jeopardy over the next 5 months than they are today. It deliberately, by choice, keeps the economy under a cloud of instability and uncertainty. It chooses to risk higher interest rates and shrinking retirement funds that hit on every American family. So why would we choose to intentionally keep this cloud hanging over the country and the American people? We're told that we have to do it in order to force this Congress to reduce the deficit. That's what we're told. But the actions tell a very different story. The actions suggest this is not about reducing the deficit. It's about reducing the deficit in a particular way--the way the Republican plan wants to reduce the deficit. That's why our Republican colleagues walked out of talks three times. That's why they've rejected the balanced approach and framework put forward by the President that says, Let's do $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and we'll do $3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. Three dollars of spending cuts to every dollar in revenue from cutting special interest tax breaks and asking the folks at the very top to go back to the rates they were paying during the Clinton administration. Our Republican colleagues rejected that approach to reducing the deficit because they don't want to end these tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. In fact, we passed a piece of legislation just a week ago that says we're going to keep America from paying our bills unless we enact a constitutional amendment that makes it easier to cut Medicare and Social Security than it does to cut special interest subsidies. It would say a majority vote, let's just cut Medicare and education, but you need two-thirds, a supermajority, if you want to cut corporate tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. So that's what it's all about. This particular issue on the debt ceiling is a manufactured crisis. We've all heard when President Reagan was President, he raised it 17 times. So this is a manufactured crisis in order to try and force and squeeze through a particular deficit reduction plan--a deficit reduction plan that would end the Medicare guarantee, cut education, and yet protect those special interest tax breaks and breaks for the very top. If we want to be serious about the deficit, we need to do a balanced approach, but let's not hold the entire American economy hostage. Let's not put us on 5-month to 5-month interest rate and creditworthiness watches in order to jam through a particular idea on deficit reduction. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear, the Democratic Senate leader Mr. Reid has put on the table a plan that would cut more immediately than the Republican plan before us today, even if you don't include the overseas contingency account funding. The difference is, he would not put our economy in jeopardy again just 5 months from now, as the Republican plan did. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 440, a bill to establish a Special Envoy to promote religious freedom for minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, because no one should be made to feel that the practice of their religion is a crime or a source of shame. Around the world, people are persecuted in the name of one religion against another. Such persecution not only violates their inalienable right to worship as they choose; it also creates instability in many places around the world. Many conflicts are rooted in sectarian differences and rivalries. To the extent the United States can promote religious tolerance, we advance the cause of human rights, justice and peace around the globe. This bill creates a special envoy in order to monitor and combat acts of religious intolerance and incitement targeted against religious minorities and to work with foreign governments to address laws that are inherently discriminatory toward religious minority communities. As we speak, there are minorities all over the world who live in fear for their lives merely because they practice a different religion than those around them. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 440.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1938 and object to this majority's repeated attempts to circumvent environmental law and prioritize special interests over sound science. The Keystone XL is a proposed pipeline project from Alberta, Canada to Port Arthur, Texas. Since the project crosses national boundaries, it requires Presidential approval to proceed. By Executive Order, President Obama has delegated that authority to the State Department, which is in the process of reviewing public comment so that it can finalize the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Once an EIS has been completed, the State Department will receive final input from other relevant federal agencies, as well as the general public, before making a final determination as to whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest. According to the State Department, this review-- which appropriately includes a thorough evaluation of the project's environmental, marketplace, national security and community impacts-- should be completed by the end of the year. However, rather than allowing that process to come to a timely and considered conclusion, today's legislation sets forth its own demonstrably inaccurate and woefully incomplete findings in order to justify the majority's preferred outcome--and then directs the President to make a final permitting decision by November 1, whether the required evaluation is complete or not. In truth, one need look no further than the errors and omissions throughout this legislation's findings to understand why an objective, complete, scientifically-based review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project is so necessary. Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the FY 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. Not because I object to cuts affecting Members of Congress or their staff. I do not. As I have repeatedly said, I believe a responsible solution to our national debt will require shared sacrifice from every American--and that includes Members of Congress, their staff and other employees of this House. I object to this legislation because of the wrongheaded choices it makes elsewhere in the legislative branch of our government. For example, H.R. 2551 cuts funding for the Government Accountability Office by 6.4%--despite the fact that every dollar spent by the GAO on its oversight activities returns $4 in savings to the taxpayers. Additionally, as we wrestle with difficult issues in an increasingly complex world, I think Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle would agree that policymakers need access to more objective and independent expert analysis, not less. Yet this bill slashes funding for the Library of Congress and its widely respected nonpartisan Congressional Research Service by 8.5%--and it cuts funding for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that serves as the definitive scorekeeper for every measure Congress considers by 6.4%. Mr. Speaker, there are responsible and effective ways to reduce federal spending, and there are irresponsible and ineffective ways to reduce Federal spending. Unfortunately, this bill has too much of the latter and not enough of the former. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I don't think it's lost on anyone in this House that today is both the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, as well as the first day the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by that law officially begins its work on behalf of American families. And so it is disappointing--although not very surprising--that the majority would choose to bring a bill to the floor designed to undermine and delay this vitally important independent watchdog for American consumers. Specifically, H.R. 1315 would invite gridlock at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by replacing its current Director with a less accountable five-member commission. It would make it easier for other regulators to interfere with and overturn the Bureau's proposed consumer protections. And it would delay the CFPB's core functions until the Senate confirms the Chairman of the legislation's proposed Board of Directors--something the Senate Republican leadership has publicly and repeatedly announced it is unwilling to do. Mr. Chair, although not the only cause, it is at this point beyond dispute that insufficiently regulated predatory lending practices targeting consumers with abusive financial products like subprime mortgages helped create the housing bubble that precipitated the financial crisis. Had the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau been in existence during the early 2000s, we could have protected individual homebuyers from these marketplace abuses--and ultimately protected the Nation from the financial meltdown that ensued. Mr. Chair, we have an obligation to learn from history. Rather than take the referee off the field, we should insist on a referee that enforces clear and understandable rules of the road so that American consumers can make informed decisions about the financial products that are right for themselves and their families. I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the 37th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus to call upon the Government of Turkey to end its unlawful military occupation of the Island. For 37 years, Greek Cypriots have had to live with the memory of being forcibly removed from their homes only to become refugees in their own country. For years, they endured a policy of systematic ethnic cleansing and, despite the insistence of the international community, to this day Cyprus remains under occupation. Forty-three thousand Turkish troops occupy a third of the island, making the area they control among the most militarized regions in the world. For 37 years, it has been the goal of the international community to reunify Cyprus into a stable and prosperous country where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace and security. Attempts to reunify the country have undergone various levels of negotiation for over 45 years yielding few lasting achievements along the way. Even the occasional success has produced little of enduring material value. For example, in 1979, the U.S. and UN applauded Turkey's agreement to withdraw and handover the uninhabited city of Famagusta to its rightful inhabitants. Every year, the UN calls upon Turkey to honor its commitment, but, to this day, Famagusta remains in the hands of the Turkish government. The U.S. and the EU and the UN have demonstrated their willingness to work with Turkey toward a lasting settlement in Cyprus that reunifies the country into a bi-zonal federation. By continuing its occupation, by closing its seaports to Cypriot-flagged ships, and by refusing to follow through on its promises, Turkey has continued to ignore the will of the international community. So, on this 37th anniversary of Turkey's illegal occupation of Cyprus, I ask my colleagues to join me in condemning the continued occupation and join me in calling for Turkey to withdraw its troops from the island.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will yield on your time, Mr. Goodlatte, and I'm happy when you have some time to do that. In fact, I think you're going to want an opportunity, because the gentleman from Virginia was asked at the hearing on his proposal for a constitutional amendment, which was voted out of the committee, to identify one budget that would meet the requirements of their version, this version of the constitutional amendment, and it was pointed out that even the draconian--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, once again, the President had a plan to reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over 10 years--$3 in cuts, $1 in revenue. Our Republican colleagues walked away from the table because they didn't want $1 of deficit reduction from closing special interest tax loopholes. With that, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, again, the choice is not whether we put in place a plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. The issue is how we do that. That is the difference here. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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